POWER TO THE PEOPLE

An important theme seems to run through several recent Supreme Court decisions: that the power in this country belongs to WE THE PEOPLE.  Too many seem to have forgotten this and simply stood by as various governmental bodies seized more and more power that is not rightfully theirs.  The Court did much to right the ship of state in its decisions released this month.

• The Court did not evade its own usurpation of the people’s power.  It acknowledged that it had overstepped its authority when it created an unstated constitutional right out of thin air.  It reversed its error and returned the power to create a right to abortion to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs. (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization)
• On its last day of this term, the Court ruled that governmental agencies (in this case the EPA) do not have expansive, unlimited power to make environmental mandates absent a grant of that power to the agency by the Congress (which is the voice of the people). (West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency)
• In ending President Trump’s remain in Mexico immigration policy, the Court noted that federal law allows such discretionary actions by the Executive.  Because such policy is discretionary, and because the people have chosen a different Executive, it follows that such policy or change in policy reflects the voice of the people. (Biden v. Texas)
• In deciding that a school coach has the right to kneel and pray following a game, the Court reminded us that we have the freedom to exercise religion and that it is not the job of governmental entities to seek out and deny such acts that are not intended to impose a particular religion on anyone.  The Court held that the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.  That is, again the Court reminded us not only of our rights and the limitations on government to interfere with those rights, but also of the duty of those who live in a pluralistic society to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District)
• The Court also held that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for tuition assistance violated the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, again protecting the people’s right from government intrusion.  (Carson v. Makin)
• The Court held that representatives of North Carolina’s state House of Representatives and Senate could intervene in voter ID-law litigation.  As such, the people, through those representatives, will have their voices heard.  (Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP)
• The Court held that a state firearm regulation requiring “proper cause” to carry, prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Here, the Court did as the Constitution expects and requires:  it protected the enumerated rights of the people from intrusion and limitation by the government. (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen)

Of course the Court decided more than the above cases, and the summaries of those noted above are brief and simplified; all opinions contain far more detailed legal argumentation and reasoning as well as dissenting or concurring opinions that offer further commentary on the majority decision.

Do I, do most people, like the result of every case?  No.  But the Court's job is not to do what is popular but to read the Constitution and remind us of what it says and make sure that by following our Constitution and rule of law that we maintain our carefully constructed democracy.

I rejoice in the fact that at the end of this term the Court provided us with a number of opinions to remind us of the power structure in our government of/for/by the people.  The governmental institutions exist to serve us, not to control us.  We the people hold the power.  We have certain rights, some enumerated in the Constitution, some which we can ourselves create through our representatives and the political process.  But the rights are ours, not the government's to create, grant, or remove. 

Of course, the exercise of our power requires work.  While protests and demonstrations are a way of voicing opinions and desires in the public square, the way to make those desires a reality as a part of our government and our rule of law, is to work through our elected officials to shape our government.  That begins when we cast our vote.  It requires us to be informed of how our government and our political process works and to understand the ways in which we can exercise our voice.  It also requires us to be gracious when we do not get our way and to understand that we cannot have the diversity and pluralism that make this country great without also exercising tolerance of those with whom we disagree.

I am grateful to the Court for reminding us of these things.  I am grateful that the Framers were wise enough to include a non-political branch of government which can keep us focused on who and what we are and ease us back on course when we forget what our democracy is or how it works. 

I only wish that those who are attacking the Court for judgments the results of which they find displeasing, would understand what the Court’s role is and respect it.  How different the behavior of our current president from that of President Kennedy when faced with a decision not to his liking that prohibited prayer in public school.  The following is from President Kennedy’s News Conference on June 27, 1962:

 QUESTION: Mr. President, in the furor over the Supreme Court's decision on prayer in the schools, some members of Congress have been introducing legislation for Constitutional amendments specifically to sanction prayer or religious exercise in the schools. Can you give us your opinion of the decision itself, and of these moves of the Congress to circumvent it?

PRESIDENT KENNEDY: I haven't seen the measures in the Congress and you would have to make a determination of what the language was, and what effect it would have on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made its judgment, and a good many people obviously will disagree with it. Others will agree with it. But I think that it is important for us if we are going to maintain our Constitutional principle that we support the Supreme Court decisions even when we may not agree with them.

In addition, we have in this case a very easy remedy, and that is to pray ourselves and I would think that it would be a welcome reminder to every American family that we can pray a good deal more at home, we can attend our churches with a good deal more fidelity, and we can make the true meaning of prayer much more important in the lives of all of our children. That power is very much open to us.

I would hope that as a result of this decision that all American parents will intensify their efforts at home, and the rest of us will support the Constitution and the responsibility of the Supreme Court in interpreting it, which is theirs, and given to them by the Constitution.

If only our current President, our politicians, and all of our citizens would understand the great gift that we have in this country and that we have the Supreme Court to remind us when we forget.   These opinions should wake us not to fear but to joy in our rights and our responsibilities.  It is our duty to work constructively together through our elected representatives to create the rules that this great nation deserves.

I am both thankful and proud that I am a small part of our country’s legal system.  Like everyone, I do not always agree with the Supreme Court, but I do respect it.  And now that it has blatantly reminded us that we the people have the power, rather than disrespect or work to destroy this great institution I wish the people would understand that they do not need to destroy in order to simply seize the power that they already hold. 

Do we really have a culture of death?

Here’s what I don’t understand – why are so many folks upset that, following the overturning of Roe, there is no Constitutional right to kill babies?   I mean, OK, maybe some women have been brainwashed to believe they have this right, but I have to believe (hope?) that most women are more intelligent than that. 

I mean, most adults can still read, and reading reveals that nearly all credible science and medical professionals agree that life begins at conception and that the embryo and then fetus are human life forms and are alive.  Embryo, then fetus are the earliest stages, but there continue to be developing stages post birth.  Infancy is also an early stage of human development and yet, while a few people do believe post-birth abortion is acceptable I have to believe (hope?) that the vast majority are not OK with killing infants.

Recently I pointed out the scientific/medical position to a pro-abortionist.  The response:  "Did you think I wasn’t aware an embryo is a developing human? You’re stating the obvious and proving my point. It’s ‘developing’ - it’s a group of cells multiplying that develops into a human. A human that the majority of pro-lifers won’t care about the moment they’re born.”  Gosh, so much to unpack in this statement!

What is a Developing Human?

If a developing human is just a clump of cells, and if killing that clump of cells is OK, then we are all in danger.  We all reproduce cells daily.  A child’s brain continues developing long past birth.  Body tissues grow by increasing the number of cells that make them up. Cells in many tissues in the body divide and grow very quickly until we become adults. When we are adults, many cells mature and become specialized for their particular job in the body. (cancerresearchuk.org).  According to Scientific American, “About 330 billion cells are replaced daily, equivalent to about 1 percent of all our cells. In 80 to 100 days, 30 trillion will have replenished—the equivalent of a new you.”

The argument that you can kill a clump of developing cells is clearly disingenuous.  Moreover, even if one were to limit that killing to prebirth, it is hard to understand how anyone can accept unrestricted killing of a human entity (even a living clump of cells is an entity) when it has a unique DNA combination that is a legacy equally contributed from both parents, when it has a beating heart at 21 days after conception and a brain that at 6 weeks is at least partially developed and includes:  a forebrain/cerebrum, which controls certain brain functions , like thinking and problem-solving; a midbrain involved in processing visual and auditory information; and a hindbrain/cerebellum, which manages balance and coordination, as well as the medulla, which is the control center for the body's automatic activities, like blood pressure and heart rate.

Yes, the embryo and fetus are developing.  But so is the 6-month-old child, or the teenager, or the young adult, or even the octogenarian.  If one accepts killing a developing human, where exactly would one draw the line?

Pro-Lifers do care

As to the arguments that pro-lifers don’t care about children after they are born, this too is disingenuous as is the argument that they don’t care about the mothers or that they force people to have children.  I don’t see pro-lifers going around killing babies after they are born.

It is pro-life health centers that offer pregnant women not only health care for them and their child before birth, but who offer solutions for the woman if she is unable, for whatever reason, to keep and raise her child.  They are not afraid to discuss adoption.  They are not afraid to discuss types of childcare.  They are not afraid to discuss job training and parenting assistance.  They are not afraid to discuss taxpayer benefits that may be available to the mother and child. 

Pro-life begins with compassion for the unborn child, but it does not ignore compassion for the pregnant mother, the father, other family members and the compassion for all concerned does not end at the moment of birth.

Failing attempts to justify the killing

I continue to believe (hope?) that most women, indeed most adult humans, are capable of understanding the above.  So, then, how is it that so many believe it is OK to kill over 700,000 developing children a year?

Do women really think that abortion is just a form of birth control?  (Hint, it is not:  birth control prevents a pregnancy and thus a new human from being created; abortion kills a new human after pregnancy occurs, after the new life is created).  Yet, most abortions are to kill children that were conceived during consensual sex.  Things like rape, incest, severe medical necessity are the exceptions.  How can anyone who understands what abortion really is believe that it is just another form of birth control?

Do women really believe lack of an unlimited abortion right is some sort of attack on them?  If they do, then they do not have a very high opinion of themselves, because to believe that they do not have a say in whether or not to engage in consensual sex is the result of a very demeaning view of women. 

Women are powerful, and part of their power is the ability to decline sex, to use birth control, and to understand that whenever they engage in sex that the result could be a pregnancy.  If we are not teaching our children (at an appropriate age) where babies come from, then we do have a problem that needs to be addressed immediately. 

Similarly, if we are not teaching our children (again at an appropriate age) about birth control as well as that no birth control guarantees 100% that pregnancy will not follow intercourse, then we need to address that.  Women and men need to understand that if they have sex they are potentially going to become fathers and mothers.   They need to understand their responsibility in choosing to engage in sex.

Women are also strong enough to accept the consequences of their acts, including participating in the creation of a new life and the responsibility that the mother now has to that life.  (And yes, the responsibility is not hers alone, but neither does she have the absolute and unrestricted right to pronounce a death sentence on that new and innocent life.)

Overturning Roe

I grew up before Roe v. Wade.  I remember abortion arguments in the 60s and 70s.  Yes, abortions were performed, some legally, many illegally.  Some resulted in medical problems or even death for the mother as well as the aborted child.  But most occurred in the early stages and most were “successful” in that they killed the child and left the mother with no physical injuries.  The mental and psychological effects of aborting a pregnancy are another story and continue to be a result of abortions both legal and illegal.

I remember when Roe was decided.  It was not a good legal decision as any number of legal scholars have asserted since 1973.  Most people at the time would have preferred that they retain their ability to speak through their elected representatives and determine for themselves what rules and rights would exist regarding abortion.

In 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson established the idea of “separate but equal”.  That too was a poor decision by the Court and again, it took significant time for the Court to correct itself.  Plessy was overturned in 1954, 58 years after it was decided.  The wheels of justice move slowly, but they do move, and the beauty of our democracy is that we eventually get it right.

Everyone needs to put emotion aside and rejoice in what the Supreme Court had the courage to do in Dobbs: read the Constitution and enforce it by returning power to the states and the people where it rightfully belongs. We the people now have the power to determine exactly what the extent of any right to abortion should be. And, because the right is with the states, because we have a diverse population, the state rules will differ to some extent. This is democracy and we should all rejoice in it. The Dobbs opinion should not really be such a big deal, because all the Supreme Court did was do its job.

Now is the time for people on both sides to reach out and suggest reasonable rules.  They need to stop the hateful and violent protests and begin the peaceful lobbying and letter writing to their elected representatives so that everyone, through those representatives, will have a voice in what their state’s laws regarding abortion and life will be.

But first, I think we need to get over the general premise that seems to be that it is OK to kill a preborn (and sometimes being born or post birth) child.  Exceptional circumstances may, in extraordinary situations, justify such killing, but it is never simply dismissible as OK.  I do not understand that culture of death.  And I hope that anyone who has input into the education of children, whether their own or those of others, will not perpetuate the belief that killing an inconvenient child is OK.  We must learn to be less selfish than that.

Don’t Be Fooled

More precisely, don’t let the politicians and their minions fool you.  They want you to be upset over the Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.  They want to use this for their own political gain, to garner votes for themselves.  They want to make this a really big deal, but really it is not. 

Overturning Roe v. Wade does not make abortion illegal.  Be clear on that.  (My previous post on 6/24 addresses the opinion itself and includes a link to the full opinion.)

All the ruling does is give the people back their voice that is rightfully theirs.  The people themselves, through their elected representatives in each state may now determine their abortion rules or lack thereof.  The power is rightfully theirs and the rules of the states will be diverse reflecting the diversity of our country. 

All that the Supreme Court did was read the Constitution and return the power to the people where it belongs.  The people of each state, exercising their voices through their elected reps, can and will choose a variety of limitations ranging from total bans to no restrictions whatsoever.  Most will likely not stray too far from what has existed under Roe.   This is the way democracy works.  Rather than being angry, everyone should rejoice in their power and if they do not like their state's rules, they can use their voices through their state representatives to change them.

I would hope that in addressing possible state regulations that the legislators and people of each state do not simply react with emotion, fear, and hate, but sit down and spend time researching the many ramifications of abortion laws and listening to the many views that exist.  I would hope that there will be a tolerance of views that are different from one’s own.  Following are some initial thoughts for such discussions.

First, what is abortion? 

I think we have to begin there.  Abortion kills a preborn human.  That preborn child can be called an embryo or fetus depending on its stage of development.  In humans, the embryo is medically defined as “the developing individual from the time of implantation to about the end of the second month after conception.” From the third month to the point of delivery, the individual is called a fetus.  

So, beginning with conception we have a human organism, a human life.  Though not fully formed, it is unique and it is alive.  We have to acknowledge that regardless of stage of pregnancy, abortion ends the life of this unique human organism.  Abortion is quite simply the taking of a human life.

Is ending the life of a pre-born human acceptable, and if so, when?

Acknowledging that abortion is a killing, the people must decide if this is ever acceptable.  Generally we protect life.  Rules are sometimes, but not always, absolute.  Every state has statutes addressing various forms of homicide.  Some will be various degrees of murder, others will be various degrees of manslaughter, and others will be justifiable homicides.   

The people, through their representatives must decide whether they want an absolute ban or an absolute 9+ month permission for abortion.  If neither absolute, then it must be decided what will and what will not be allowed.

Restrictions and permissions might focus on the point during pregnancy at which the abortion is performed and/or the reason for the abortion.  It should be clear that such allowances are exceptions to the general rule that all life is to be protected. 

For me, the idea of setting a specific and perhaps arbitrary time during the pregnancy before which killing is OK and after which it is not does not comport with this country’s basic belief in the value of life.  Many will have religious beliefs that oppose taking a human life.  Some will believe there is a point before which the child is not well-enough formed to be of value.  These are emotional issues, but they must be considered so as to hear all sides and beliefs as well as the science related to such things as when a fetus can feel pain and when it is viable.

If not time, what circumstances should allow an abortion?

Abortion is seen by many as simply another form of birth control.  It is not. 

Most abortions terminate the lives of children conceived during consensual sex.  Should children so conceived be allowed to be aborted simply because they are not wanted by the mother?  This brings us to the tired phrase of “a woman’s right to choose.”  Should she be entitled to engage in consensual sex and then, if she becomes pregnant, be allowed to abort (i.e., kill) her child?  Or does her “right to choose” occur at an earlier stage?

To say that in such consensual cases the woman was not capable of making the choice to have or not to have sex is demeaning to women.  What happens is that the woman is either unaware of or willing to ignore the possible consequences of that act.  If unaware, we need to do a better job of educating our daughters (and sons); if unwilling to take responsibility for her act and its consequences then we also need to do a better job of teaching our children that acts have consequences and that they cannot do whatever they want with impunity; they cannot disregard the effects of their actions on others (including a child that they might conceive).  Abortion is not just another form of birth control, and we need to teach our children that you can’t just dispose of a life because it is inconvenient for you.

But what about rape and incest or circumstances where the child will have significant medical issues or the mother’s life is truly in danger?  These are exceptions that prove the more general rule.  These are the circumstances that might make a specific abortion acceptable in the same way that certain circumstances make a homicide justifiable.  But abortion should not be generally accepted simply in order to allow it in these small percentage of the unwanted pregnancies that now end in the death of the child.  Any exceptions should truly be exceptional.

Who has the right to order the killing?

Another tired phrase is “my body, my choice” which is often combined with “abortion is reproductive health.”  

Beyond the idea noted above that the woman’s choice comes earlier in the process, the reality is that there are two bodies involved here: the woman’s body which is the carrier for the second new human’s body.  Both must be considered.   In this country we do not give any one group of people the right to murder another.

As to reproductive health, again, that involves the health of the woman before pregnancy along with such things as birth control.  Once she begins the reproductive process the health of both her and her child must be considered.  Indeed, the CDC includes both maternal and infant health in its discussions of reproductive health.

Once there is a pregnancy there are two lives to consider.  But there are also others:  the father, perhaps siblings of the preborn child, and other possible family issues.  The pregnant woman may be carrying the child, but that person is also the child of the father, carrying his as well as the mother’s DNA and family legacy.  Should the father have a voice?  And if so, when?  Personally, I think the child consensually conceived is of both father and mother and neither should alone be allowed to terminate that child’s life.

And what about society in general and our obligation and responsibility to protect all life?  Every one of us bears some responsibility in the creation of any right to abort.

Criteria

If abortion is not completely banned or allowed up to and including birth with no exceptions, then there must be criteria for allowing exceptions to whatever rules exist prohibiting abortion.  It is not just the mother, or mother and father, but also the child that must be considered.   Beyond the interests of the parents, the best interests of the child must be considered; those interests do not usually include death.  The exceptions of things like rape; incest; etc. might fall into an exceptional category making certain abortions justifiable even though they take the life of the unborn and innocent child.  But convenience of the parents, or interference in their careers, lifestyle, finances, etc., should not create the extraordinary circumstances that any exception should require.

Facts, Emotion, and Reason

Right now, everyone seems to be coming to grips with the fact that Roe v. Wade is no more.  Emotions are running high.  Sadly, those emotions are being manipulated by politicians and the media as they feed the public fiery rhetoric filled with false facts. 

Feelings are emotional interpretations of events.  The events themselves are generally neutral.  That is the case with this decision – it basically just reasserts the Constitution and its limitations on the federal government with power left to the states and the people.  There are those who want you to believe that is evil, but actually it is empowering.  The key question that everyone must ask is “Are your feelings your own or are they being manipulated?” 

Then, we need to put those emotions aside, listen to those with other views, examine in detail all relevant facts, and move forward with reasonable and rational abortion rules that consider and protect everyone concerned, including the unborn children.

Think and Understand before you React

 In deciding Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org. today, the Supreme Court did nothing more than read the Constitution and enforce it.  That is, the Court did its job.

Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Org. holds: “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

The Constitution provides specific rights to the people and protects those rights from the government.  It establishes specific federal powers and ensures that those “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (10^th Amendment to U.S. Constitution)

The Constitution is neutral on the question of abortion – neither pro-life nor pro-choice.  It does not address abortion and as such leaves to  the people the question of whether and to what extent a right to abortion exists.

As Justice Kavanaugh stated in his concurring opinion in Dobbs, the Constitution does not prohibit the establishment of additional rights, but those not found in the Constitution cannot be created by the government nor by the Court, but rather must be created by the people through their representatives.

The Justice wrote:

In arguing for a constitutional right to abortion that would override the people’s choices in the democratic process, the plaintiff Jackson Women’s Health Organization and its amici emphasize that the Constitution does not freeze the American people’s rights as of 1791 or 1868. I fully agree.  To begin, I agree that constitutional rights apply to situations that were unforeseen in 1791 or 1868— such as applying the First Amendment to the Internet or the Fourth Amendment to cars. Moreover, the Constitution authorizes the creation of new rights—state and federal, statutory and constitutional.  But when it comes to creating new rights, the Constitution directs the people to the various processes of democratic self-government contemplated by the Constitution—state legislation, state constitutional amendments, federal legislation, and federal constitutional amendments. See generally Amdt. 9; Amdt. 10; Art. I, §8; Art. V; J. Sutton, 51 Imperfect Solutions: States and the Making of American Constitutional Law 7−21, 203−216 (2018); A. Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography 285−291, 315−347 (2005).

So, before you run out to celebrate or protest that “abortion is now banned” (which is not the result of Dobbs) you might be wise to actually read the Constitution and also read the incredibly thoughtful opinions that together make up the 6-3 decision in Dobbs.  Those opinions explain thoroughly and clearly the sound reasoning behind the Court’s decision.  

         

                     

A link to the full U.S. Constitution and its Amendments can be found here:  US CONST 

A link to the Dobbs decision can be found here:  DOBBS 

The point is, that the rules about abortion are up to the states.  In each state the people, through their representatives, can enact rules and regulations.  Such rules and regulations are for the people and not the Court to create.  In our democracy this is how the voice of the people works and it is how we retain and maintain our government of/for/by the people. 

The voices of those who care about abortion issues should be directed to their state legislatures.  As noted in the Dobbs opinion, the various states have always had differing opinions and rules about abortion, and that is likely to continue following this overturning of Roe.

This democratic process works, even if more slowly than some would like.  It protects us and it is the best form of government that you will find.  So, before trying to destroy it, its Constitution, and its institutions, before trying to radically change to some other governing process, take the time to understand what you already have, because you may not know what you had until its gone. 

The Leak That Reveals More Than the Opinion That Was Leaked

 I am appalled by the leak of the SCOTUS draft opinion; this is truly an attack on our democracy, far worse than the demonstration/protest that the Democrats like to call the insurrection.

I am perhaps even more horrified at the Left’s reaction.  They do not condemn the leak but rather applaud it.  They are using it to fund raise as they call for Congress to institutionalize that which the draft opinion clearly explains is unconstitutional.  They are using the leak to further their political dreams:  court packing and with it an end to our rule of law.

This leak was an obvious attempt to stir things up and raise the voices of the mob in an effort to intimidate the Justices of the Supreme Court and persuade them to change their minds along with their apparent decision in this case.

The Leak of a Supreme Court Document

The Supreme Court is the last bastion of our democracy.  It consists of 9 Justices, all of whom are scholars of Constitutional law, and all of whom work together to do their best to interpret and protect our Constitution.  They trust one another and we the people trust (or should trust) them.  This institution, one of three branches of our government that place checks and balances on one another, is the only one of the three branches that is not political.  It is the branch that truly protects our democracy.

This leak destroys the necessary trust that must exist within the Court and among the Justices.  It appears to be an attempt to turn the Court into another political body, one that will be ruled not by justice but by the mob – by the loudest shouting voices responding to the leak.   The current demonstrations about the leaked opinion’s contents not only include people exercising their First Amendment right to free speech, but also include an element of attempted intimidation of the justice system.  There is an effort to intimidate the Justices to the extent that they will render a final opinion to keep the peace rather than an opinion based upon law and the Constitution.

This is a frightening situation for our democracy; this leak is an act of terrorism, an insurrection, a direct attack upon our democracy and as such an attempt to destroy America as we know it.

What the leak reveals about the Left

Assuming the Left is responsible for the leak (an assumption that I believe is fairly reasonable), it tells us what has been becoming more and more apparent:  that the Left is willing to destroy every aspect of our democracy in its attempt to turn it into their socialist power dream. 

Anyone with any respect for our judicial system and for the rule of law would not and could not commit this act of treason.  Only one who wishes to destroy America and all She stands for could be capable of committing this act against the very core of our democracy. 

For many of us who have been paying attention to the facts and not the narratives, this does not surprise us.  If you love America, the Left is not your friend.

What the Democrats’ reaction reveals about their guiding principle that the ends justify the means

Leading Democrats including Pelosi and Schumer used the word “atrocity” in response to news of the leak.  But they were not referring to the act of leaking a draft SCOTUS opinion.  Rather, they were referring to the substance of the draft opinion.  This is telling.

Democrats, who claim that they are the defenders of our democracy, should be concerned about the attack on that democracy evidenced by the leak itself.  But instead, the Democrats join the Left in applauding the leaker as some sort of hero.

The Democrats have already begun sending fundraising requests based upon the content of the opinion.  They are using the opinion as campaign material:  you must elect us so we can pass a law mandating what the opinion declares as unconstitutional.  You must elect us so that we can pack the court and create not an objective and just institution, not a co-equal but nonpolitical branch of our government, but rather a political body packed with activists who will do our bidding. 

The Democrats are using the content of the leaked document to further their continuing quest for ever more power.  And they are completely unconcerned with the damage and destruction that will cause not only to SCOTUS but to our democracy and our country.

If there is any good to come of this terrorist attack on our very core, I hope that it is to wake up the many sleeping Americans to what is really going on in this country.  Wake up to the facts, and see the Left’s ongoing narrative for what it is – the ruin of a once great country.

"Independence means you decide according to the law and the facts." - Stephen Breyer

Equal Rights are not Special Rights

I listened to the entire Supreme Court argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health last Wednesday.  You can listen to the recording here – DOBBS RECORDING  or read the transcript here -TRANSCRIPT. 

I have no intention here of going through/evaluating all the arguments or predicting outcomes.  Many commentators have already done that and you also can listen/read the above and make your own judgments and predictions.

After making a few brief comments I simply want to focus on the idea of the woman’s right itself, as it struck me from the arguments of the Respondent and the Solicitor General.

As to the few short observations – I thought the attorney for the Petitioner State of Mississippi was outstanding.  Regardless of one’s biases or feelings about the case, he was a fine example of what should be expected of anyone arguing before the Supreme Court.  He was incredibly well prepared, thoroughly knew and understood the relevant law and facts as well as the policy arguments involved.  He listened to the Justices’ questions and concerns, answered their questions, and presented a persuasive case for his client.

I found the other attorneys, while polished orators, to be less prepared and less able to actually answer the Justice’s concerns.

I was impressed with all but one of the Justices.  Eight seemed to ask fair and important questions that were designed to help them to understand aspects of the case or the arguments so as to better render an appropriate decision.  I was disappointed in Justice Sotomayor who seemed to be unnecessarily biased and argumentative in her questions during this argument.

But one thing that struck me about the arguments of the Respondent Jackson Women’s Health and the U.S. Solicitor General were the seeming reliance on some sort of special equality held by women.   These attorneys were arguing to uphold Roe v. Wade and to strike down the Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks. 

These attorneys argued that women have a fundamental right to abortion.  When asked what this specific right is – where it is or arises from in the Constitution, they repeatedly referred to “liberty.” If one cuts through all the chaff, their argument seems to be that while we all have a right to liberty, women have a special right within that which allows them to terminate the life of another, at least until that life becomes viable outside the womb.

Now last time I read our Constitution, it provides and demands equal rights for all citizens, not different or special rights for one group or another.  Yet what their argument does is to take the liberty right from the unborn child, giving it no rights at all, and then adding that child’s rights to the woman’s liberty right, giving her some sort of super right.

A woman’s right to control her own body is not a special right, but one that exists for all of us (mandates not withstanding).  But when that right includes the right to take another life as abortion does, it becomes a special right.  Giving women the right to take away the right of another in essence gives them a super-equality; an “equality” that is more than the equality of others.  That flies in the face of the demands of our Constitution and our core principles of equality and liberty for all. 

The weakness of this pro-abortion argument exemplifies the underlying weakness of the Roe v. Wade decision and of the assertion that a woman holds the right to choose not only what happens to her life, but to the life of a separate individual in her womb.  If the woman’s right is based on liberty, it is also a denial of liberty to another.

Other arguments were similarly weak:  for some reason it is, in the mind of the respondent and the DOJ, acceptable that a woman’s right to abortion may be curtailed after the point of viability (somewhere around 24 weeks) but 15 weeks is too early.  Their reliance on the difficulties faced in raising a child were cut short when Justice Barrett reminded them that a woman could give up a child for adoption almost immediately after birth, thus avoiding the alleged harm of parenting.

They also had no real answer to why this question of right to abortion,  not set forth in the Constitution, should be decided by 9 Justices rather than by the people or their legislative representatives.  They asserted it was because those 9 had, in Roe v. Wade, said it was a right.  This circular reasoning does not answer or prove why those 9, not the people, should decide whether that right exists and if so to what extent.

The arguments of Respondent and DOJ simply were not convincing.  They asserted a right exists which puts the women’s rights, her equality, above others, but couldn’t explain precisely what this right is or where this right came from other than a Court decision.  They couldn’t explain why it is necessary that women be granted a special right, giving them some sort of greater liberty or super-equality.

And, when it came to the question of whether the Court should re-examine and possibly overturn Roe v. Wade, they argued no, primarily based on nothing more than that the case and its created right to abortion has been around so long. 

Indeed, there was much questioning about whether the court should touch the Roe ruling, especially with the strong political split about a woman’s right to abortion.  Is it some super case that the court cannot touch?

The State’s attorney analogized to the overturning, after 58 years, of Plessy v. Ferguson, the case that created separate but equal, by Brown vs. Board of Education, the case that ruled racial segregation unconstitutional.  In his rebuttal he stated:

In closing, I would say that in his dissent in Plessy versus Ferguson, Justice Harlan emphasized that there is no caste system here. The humblest in our country is the pure, the most powerful. Our Constitution neither knows nor tolerates distinctions on the basis of race.  It took 58 years for this Court to recognize the truth of those realities in a decision, and that was the greatest decision that this Court ever reached. We're -- we're running on 50 years of Roe. It is an egregiously wrong decision that has inflicted tremendous damage on our country and will continue to do so and take innumerable human lives unless and until this Court overrules it.

Just as Brown v. Board, while focused on race, demanded recognition of true equality, so it is crucial that our current Supreme Court also focus on the equality demanded by the Constitution.   Neither women nor any other group should be granted super-rights or super-equality.  And especially not at the expense of the liberty and life of another human being.

Roe v. Wade is not protected from overrule.  If it is Constitutionally proper to overrule it then that is what should be done.  As Chief Justice Roberts noted, no matter how the Court decides, it will likely be charged with political bias in its decision.  So let us hope that they, like the Justices who decided Brown, have the courage to do what the Constitution demands, no matter what the political fallout may be.

What’s In a Name?

The “Women’s March” took place this past weekend.  I wish they wouldn’t call it that.  It was not a march for women but a march for abortion rights.  It advertised itself as a “Rally for Abortion Justice.” It took clear political positions on both the Texas abortion law and on Roe v. Wade.  Whether women’s rights include abortion rights is a divisive political question and one cannot necessarily call a march for one a march for the other.

Calling this a “women’s march” implies that it represents and is for all women.  Yet it does not and is not.  Not all women think (or march) in lock step.  Women are individuals capable of their own thought and of a vast diversity of views.  That includes views about abortion.  If the march is going to take only one position on abortion, then it cannot possibly also be an all-inclusive “women’s march.”

               Reproductive Rights

The women’s march, like many who are pro-abortion, likes to couch its arguments in terms of women’s reproductive rights.  But they assume that all women agree on the definition of “reproductive rights” and that those rights must include the right to terminate a separate and unique individual that is, based upon basic human biology, implanted within a female womb for approximately 9 months of its life.   I am unaware of where, other than in the arguments of pro-abortionists, it has been unquestionably established that a woman unequivocally has the right to terminate the life of that other being, or, if she does, that the right is somehow part of her own reproductive rights.

“Reproduction” is defined as “the production of offspring by a sexual or asexual process” and is further explained as “the combination of reproductive cells from two individuals.”  Now, just on its face, “reproduction” does not include the termination of something already reproduced, so how exactly is abortion a part of a woman’s reproductive rights?

A woman’s capability of participating in the creation of a child certainly involves a woman’s reproductive health.  Reproductive health, or sexual health, denotes the health of a woman’s reproductive system during all her life stages.”  This is the woman’s reproductive system.  It has nothing to do with the separate life of the unborn child. 

               The Science

Current science tells us that from the moment of conception a unique individual exists with a specific and unique genetic structure that is different from the mother, the father, and all other individuals.  Science also tells us this unique individual is a human because of the chromosomal makeup and that this individual is a life form because its cells grow.

The American College of Pediatrics states: “The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception—fertilization.  At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature.”

               The “Right to Choose”

If the “right to choose” is to choose an abortion, then abortion is being equated with birth control.  But there is a key difference:  a woman who uses birth control is making a decision about her own body and her own reproductive health, including whether or not to put herself in a position where she might become pregnant; in contrast, a woman who chooses an abortion is making a choice not only about her own life but about the life of a separate and innocent human being.

Let’s look at some basic biology.  The female of our species becomes impregnated when the sperm of a male unites with the egg of the female.  This can occur via a sexual act or via some form of artificial insemination.  An adult female who engages in sexual activity with a male can understand that one of the consequences of that act is that she might become pregnant.  She can try to avoid this consequence by using various forms of birth control up to and including abstinence. 

So how does this fit in with the woman’s “right to choose”?  She certainly has the right to choose what to do with her own body, including her own reproductive system.  Putting aside such things as rape and incest which present separate questions in the abortion debate, a woman has the right to choose to engage in sex.  And, just as when we are faced with any choice, the woman has the responsibility to understand and accept the possible consequences of her actions, one of which is that she may find herself pregnant and responsible for a new and unique life for at least the approximately 9 months that it lives in her womb.

Women can understand these things.  They are capable of making an informed decision about their own body and the consequences that engaging in sex may have upon that body and their lifestyle.  But that right does not necessarily extend to the right to make life or death decisions for the unborn child.

One either does or does not accept that women can make choices and handle consequences.  One who does not accept that has very little respect for women.

I do not believe women are so helpless or naïve that they cannot make a decision pre-abortion (and pre-sex) that would negate any need for an abortion.  Those who agree that women are strong and capable of making clear choices related to their own reproductive health and see abortion as nonetheless a necessary option are equating abortion with birth control.

But abortion is not just another form of birth control.  It is the termination of a separate human life.  An innocent life.  We usually call that murder.  A woman can choose what to put into her own body – food, medicine, a man’s penis.  But on what basis can this right extend to killing a separate individual that her own choices and human biology placed within her womb for the first months of its life? 

It is both hypocritical and demeaning to believe that a woman’s choice over her own body prior to impregnation is insufficient yet she must be given the choice of life or death for a new, separate, and unique individual that her own choices have placed in her care.

               It’s About the Unborn Child

If one be fair and honest one would acknowledge that this march, like the abortion debate generally, is not about women but is about the unborn.

Abortion is the termination of a human life.  Pro-abortionists would rather you not focus on that.  Hence the refocusing on “women’s rights.”  

Some women may believe that a woman whose choice resulted in her pregnancy should nonetheless be able to escape those consequences by killing the life inside her.  It is their right to hold that view and to argue that women should have that right.  But other women disagree.  Hence, the pro-abortion march is not a “women’s” march at all, but a march about the rights or lack thereof of an unborn child.

That new and unique life seems to get lost in the pro-abortion rhetoric.  It is an innocent human.  Who speaks for it?  Why do pro-abortionists believe it should be the woman alone who perhaps finds spending 9 months nurturing that new life to be inconvenient?  Who gives her the right to choose whether that new and innocent life lives or dies? (And by the way, this new life might very well be a female – a woman for whose rights a “women’s” march should be advocating.)

Science tells us that from conception there is a new human.  A human entitled to a healthy environment in which to grow.  For nine months that environment constitutes the womb.  That is the new human’s home until after birth when that human also has the right to continue to grow and develop.  The question is, why does the woman have the right to remove this living growing human from the only environment in which it can survive just because that environment happens to be within her female biology?

A Guardian ad Litem is often appointed in cases involving the rights and care of children or incapacitated individuals who cannot speak for themselves.  The Guardian’s job is to represent and speak for the child or the incapacitated, to look out for their best interests.  In the question of abortion, the mother (along with perhaps the father, doctor, or others) is asserting her desire and her rights – the actions that are in the mother’s best interest.  But where is the Guardian who will speak for the rights and life of the unborn child that the mother seeks to kill?  Who will speak for the best interests of the child?

 Not a Women’s March

The female of the species joins with a male in the reproductive act.  Human biology dictates that it is the female that carries a new child during the first nine months of its life.  Abortion is a way of ending that life.  While all women have the same role in those first 9 months of a child’s life, they do not all agree on the question of abortion, or the rights of the unborn child.

Certainly, some women can and do advocate for abortion along with abortion funding.  Some advocate for such rights up to and even shortly after birth.  Others would put more limitations on abortions.  

But many other women are anti-abortion.  And, like the pro-abortion advocates, those against abortion have varying views.  Some are against all abortion, some would allow or even favor it for cases of rape, incest, maternal health, or similar exceptions and some would only limit it after a certain time period in the pregnancy. 

Some women prefer to follow religious teachings, something that also varies among religions and denominations.  Some prefer to follow current science which tells us that the fetus is a unique human living in vitro.  Not all women see abortion as some form of birth control affecting only a woman’s reproductive system.

Women hold many diverse views about abortion.  If the Women’s March were really that – a women’s march and not a pro-abortion march, all the views would be welcome and represented.  It would acknowledge that women are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and that their ability to do so results in a number of diverse views about abortion.

The Women’s March is not that.  It is a Pro-Abortion March.  Perhaps the marchers believe they can be more successful in their cause if they claim it is for women.  But it is not.  If anything, it is anti the very equality of women that they would proclaim.  The rights advocated by the pro-abortionists both exclude and go beyond “women’s” rights while excluding consideration of the rights of the unborn child. 

The label “Women’s March” serves as a cover for the far more difficult issue of the rights of the unborn.  So please, stop calling it the “Women’s March.”  Be brave and honest enough to call it what it is:  a denial of the science that abortion is indeed the killing of a new and unique human being.

 

Understanding Long Term Consequences Requires Overcoming the Laziness of Immediate Gratification

In many ways we have become a lazy society, and that laziness means that, amongst other things, we do not use our minds to consider the many consequences of our actions.  Rather, we do what feels good or right at the moment without pondering or even anticipating the long-term effects of what we do.

Laziness is defined as “the quality of being unwilling to work or use energy.”  The laziness I am considering in this writing is the unwillingness to use the energy to work one’s brain.  

There are two issues at the top of the news these days where this laziness is readily apparent.  In both we see people readily willing to take actions, but they do so without exercising the mind and thus fail to realistically become aware of the consequences of their actions.

One is in the area of abortion.  My previous blog addressed that issue, so here I will only briefly state that if individuals about to engage in sexual intercourse would first take the time to consider the possible consequences of that act and whether or not they are willing to take on the responsibility that comes with the consequence of pregnancy, then we would not have women claiming that their right to choose comes after the pregnancy has occurred rather that at the time they decide to engage in sex.  Taking the time to think about this fact and when a woman can freely choose what to do with her body (before there is a second individual within) might significantly change the abortion debate.

Today, however, I will write about another issue:  Immigration.  Specifically, I want to address the calls and the actions to assist those individuals who have entered the country illegally.  This is often the part of the immigration crisis that is referred to as the “humanitarian crisis.” 

We have all heard the cries from those who have crossed our border with nothing but themselves and their families; the cries for food and clothing, blankets and the basic necessities of existence.  We have all heard the admonitions that as Christians or other believers, or simply as Americans, it is our duty to help the needy. 

To some extent this is true.  But, if we would use our energy to work our brains, we would know that there are many ways in which we can generally help the needy and in this instance the hordes that are seeking a better life in this country. 

Of course, if we pass out food or donate clothing or simply write a check to those who will do so for us, we get some sort of immediate gratification:  we have done our duty; we see the smiles, we can say “they like me!” 

But let’s take a moment to consider the consequences of believing that this is enough; that this is the only, or even the best, way to help the needy.

As the caravans descend upon our border and as we take everyone in, feed them, clothe them, and perhaps give them the better life of which they dreamed, we create two clear consequences.  One is that knowing that this is the result upon their arrival at the border, more and more will come.  Those who take advantage of those coming, either monetarily or in more ugly criminal enterprises, will feel emboldened to continue and increase their practices.  That is, we are encouraging some serious criminal behavior and we are also encouraging more and more families to place their children in the many dangers that come with the long journey to the U.S.   

The second clear consequence is that at some point we will no longer be able to help – not anyone – not those who have entered nor our own citizens who need our help.  We are already diverting funds from our own impoverished citizens, our homeless, our veterans, our schools and our children, all here legally, to help those who have chosen to bypass our laws and enter illegally or to make a questionable at best claim of asylum.

America cannot sustain the whole world.  And much as we might like to help everyone everywhere who is in need, we simply cannot do so.  In the real world we must put limits on our generosity, and we must realize the consequences created by our failure to do so.

But that does not mean that we must ignore those peoples who are truly suffering and are seeing this country as a better place.  There are far better ways to exercise the duty we feel to help those in need than to simply throw money or goods at the individuals whom we see.

Of course, it is easier to reach out to those who touch us emotionally – the pictures on the news of the hungry child, the suffering mother, the father begging for work.  But, while an emotional response that provides goods to those we see may help those particular individuals, it does not help those who arrive tomorrow and it certainly does not solve the problem.

Instead, let us ask why so many are fleeing their homes.  What is it about their country or their life style that makes them feel their life is not tolerable there.    What can we do to fix that situation so that they do not feel the need to flee? Perhaps it is education that is needed – maybe they need teachers.  Maybe they need to learn how to improve their farming or business practices.  Maybe the money that we give to particular individuals might better be aggregated and donated to improve infrastructure in the individuals’ home countries.  These are just thoughts off the top of my head; I am sure that there are many many ways that we could help those in need within their home countries.

By simply giving money and goods to those already here we effectively encourage more individuals to leave their home country and seek entry here.  We encourage them to put themselves into the many negative circumstances of a migration caravan.   And, perhaps most importantly, we encourage them not to improve their home country, an act that would better serve not only them but all of their countrymen as well, both now and in the future. 

As we continue, through shortsighted acts of kindness, to encourage untold thousands to cross our borders seeking help, we are creating a situation in which, at some point, this country will truly be full.  It will no longer be able to help those who seek entry or its own citizens.  It will no longer be the country that so many are now seeking.

So, yes, helping those in need is certainly aspirational.  The easy way to do that is to hand out goods to those who touch our sympathies.  The more difficult way, the way that requires work and energy, but, the more effective way to help is to discern how to permanently help these and future seekers to improve their own living conditions in their own homelands and then to give our energies to those forms of assistance. 

Of course, there are always those who will seek America and there will always be legitimate asylum seekers.  We are a generous nation when it comes to legal immigration and we will welcome a reasonable number of immigrants who meet our statutory requirements.  But to welcome all out of some shortsighted view of the duty to help those in need in reality and in the long run helps no one.

Every act has consequences.  Sometimes an act provides us with immediate gratification.  But, that gratification can turn to heartache, dismay, and crisis if we do not overcome our laziness and look to the long-term effects of what we do.

Abortion – Let’s be Honest

Abortion is a complex topic and not something that can be covered in sound bites or bumper stickers.  But, if we are going to deal with this divisive issue, the first thing we must do is be honest in what we say, beginning with what it is.

Abortion is a killing.  People may disagree about what is being killed or whether that killing is justified, but I think we must all admit that abortion kills something that is alive.  The question is what is that living entity that is being killed?  The term of the day for pro-abortionists is that it is a “clump of cells.”  But a clump of cells of what?  The answer is “a living being.”  And, if one further asks “what being?” the answer is “a human being.”

So, if we can agree that is what is being killed, then the question becomes whether or not that killing is justified.  We know that many religions have an absolute prohibition against killing.  We also know that most legal systems have a tiered approach to whether killing is or is not justified.  That is, most statutory systems will range from first degree intentional and premeditated murder to lesser degrees of murder to negligent homicide to justifiable homicide.  These systems take into account the varying circumstances under which a killing of another person may take place.

In abortion we also see varying circumstances that result in termination of that life within the womb.  At one end of the spectrum is perhaps the young woman who “sleeps around” with the full and “premeditated intention” of terminating any pregnancy that might result.  That is, she sees abortion as simply another means of birth control.

Nearing the other end of the spectrum is perhaps the woman who began with a wanted pregnancy that she intended to carry full term, but has been informed by doctors that the child has significant medical issues or defects that may result in miscarriage, still-birth, or a life that will be far from normal for the child.  Perhaps the doctors advise abortion to the mother. 

I can relate two such circumstances of which I  am aware.  In the first, the woman took the doctor’s advice for abortion, believing that she was saving her child from suffering.  The child’s life ended late in the second trimester when she was yanked from her mother’s womb in a sterile operating room and was disposed of as medical waste.  As far as I know she never was named or given any form of end of life ceremony. 

In the second instance of which I am aware, the woman was also advised to abort but chose to remain hopeful and let the pregnancy progress.  The child was born in the 7^th month and remained alive for just under an hour.  She died in loving arms at the time that she and her Creator chose.  She was named, loved, and given a burial in accordance with her family’s religious beliefs.

While I find the second approach to the situation more in line with my beliefs, I can understand that some might find the first woman’s decision to abort to be in some way reasonable under the circumstances. 

Additionally, not all pregnancies involve a willing mother:  rape and incest present circumstances quite different from those in which the mother willingly participated in the act that resulted in the pregnancy.

Abortion is not so cut and dried as many would like to make it.  It can put individuals into an agonizing position.  Like other killing, there are abortions that are pre-meditated, there are those that are done for convenience, there are those that result from negligence and there are those that may be justifiable.

In all cases of abortion we must continue to focus on the fact that a human life is being terminated.  We lose track of that when we try to couch abortion in terms of women’s reproductive rights.  Perhaps if we see abortion as nothing more than another form of birth control we can say that it is some form of reproductive right. 

But, once the pregnancy occurs, there is someone other than the woman involved.  She is now the guardian of another life.   It is no longer simply about the mother’s “reproductive rights.”   The “woman’s right to choose,” except in the cases of rape and incest, occurred before the pregnancy; it should not include the absolute right to terminate the living result of that prior choice.    

I think that sex education now begins in elementary school most everywhere and includes facts about contraception, including that no contraception method is 100% effective.  Hence, when a woman makes the choice to have sex, she is doing so with that knowledge of the possible consequences.  That is when she had the right to choose – to say no.  Having chosen yes, she then must live with the consequences, including the fact that a new life may be growing in her womb.

Rights include responsibilities.  The woman’s right to choose to have or not have sex includes the responsibility to that “clump of cells” that is a living and independent being that may result from her choice.  We need to teach women (and men) to choose wisely (but that is a topic for another blog).

I really think that most abortion questions could be handled by laws already on the books:  the homicide statutes.  For example, my state’s statutes, like most, have a section covering homicide.  They range from most to least serious, beginning with first degree murder (the killing of one human being by another without lawful justification or excuse) and include second degree murder, manslaughter, as well as  excusable and justifiable homicide, both of which require that the defendant be found not guilty and be discharged.  While as currently written these statutes do not directly cover the sorts of situations that might make an abortion excusable or justifiable, it would not take much to amend them to do so.

While some would believe that all killing should be prohibited, as a society we have agreed that there are different types of killing and that while we do not allow blanket murder, or killing for such things a personal convenience or gain, we do see some killing as justifiable.  Whether or not a specific killing is justifiable often becomes a very fact specific question for a jury.  I would argue that the above case of abortion due to serious medical defects of the child might be such a difficult and fact specific case.  Similarly, we might agree to find all abortions that result from rape or incest to be justifiable. 

You will note that the above murder statute, like most statutes, refers to “the killing of one human being by another.”  In regard to abortion, yes, the living being growing within the woman’s womb is a “clump of cells” and yes, it is medically referred to as a “fetus” which is the medical term for the unborn offspring of a mammal, but we all know that clump of cells and that fetus are of a human mammal and that it is indeed a living human being. 

It is a disingenuous and cruel twist of words to try to say this is not living, not human, not an entity alive and with an identity separate from the woman who carries it.   The termination of this individual is not simply a woman’s reproductive right.

Abortion, the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, of a living being, of a human fetus, is the deliberate killing of one human being by another.  Such death cannot be justified as a reproductive right.  It perhaps can be justified in certain circumstances but not as some right of a woman to decide that she made a wrong choice and now does not wish to live with its consequences. 

This is America and abortion is a complex topic.  The question of abortion, like homicide, has religious overtones.  We as a society have a variety of religious beliefs, but we have decided to prevent a blanket approval of all homicide, even while allowing room for circumstances that might make a homicide justifiable.  There will still be those who, based on their religious beliefs would condemn all homicide and there are those who would allow as justifiable many homicides that we as a society and our statutes do not. 

The bigger government gets, the more we are left with a one size fits all society.  Abortion cannot be regulated in that manner.  It really should be left to the states under our 10^th Amendment.  I think that states could deal with the issue using their homicide statutes as a model.  There will be variations among the states, just as there are variations in homicide statutes and their punishments. 

I think murder is wrong.  I don’t think I could kill an intruder into my home; others might have no problem doing so.   Yet I am willing, indeed support, our homicide statutes that might allow such a killing as excusable or justifiable.  I don’t have a blanket Homeowner’s Right to kill any more than a woman should have a blanket Reproductive Right to abort.  In both instances there are two lives involved and we must consider the circumstances and rights of both.

It is time to be honest about abortion.  It is indeed a killing of a living being that is human.  There is a wide range of facts and circumstances that lead to any given abortion.  With the exception of rape and incest, a woman has the right to choose not to put herself in a situation that might result in a pregnancy.  That was when she had a right to choose.  Once she is pregnant, there is a second individual involved.  To allow abortion on demand as some sort of reproductive right gives women a blanket right to kill another individual living being. 

If we would be honest about these things, we might have some sort of reasonable discussion about abortion and its limitations instead of using it as just another talking point with which to attack political opponents.   Until we do so, the living beings in the womb, our children, exist without any rights at all.