At the end of 2018, Justice Brett Kavanaugh faced one of the most tumultuous judicial inquisitions confirmations in recent history, in large part due to fear that his conservative values may tilt the Supreme Court scale of justice in favor of reversing Roe v Wade. Now, Progressives seem to be inviting a Roe v Wade challenge as they condone infanticide with recent legislation passed at the State level, followed by failed infant protection legislation at the Federal level.
First, New York State passed Senate Bill S2796, otherwise known as the “Human Reproductive Rights Act,” which amended previous legislation to eliminate criminal penalties for abortions performed after 24 weeks (see Page 2 of the bill below).NY Reproductive Health Act
S2796 claims, “…comprehensive reproductive health care, including contraception and abortion, is a fundamental component of a woman’s health, privacy and equality. The New York Constitution and United States Constitution protect a woman’s fundamental right to access safe, legal abortion…” That is categorically wrong. The courts may have abhorrently adjudicated abortion as right, as S2796 correctly asserts, but it is nowhere in the U.S. Constitution (below).US Constitution
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo opened the signing ceremony for S2796 with four and a half minutes of congratulatory accolades, and then saying, “Today is sweet, because in a few minutes I will sign this bill and another New York national precedent will be established, the most aggressive women’s equality platform in the nation is going to be in law in this state” (4:40 mark in the video below).
Governor Cuomo then revealed the real urgency for such egregious legislation, saying, “When we were debating the Reproductive Health Act, our Republican colleagues in the Senate said to us it’s unnecessary anyway, because no one would ever try to reverse Roe v Wade. … Well how wrong they were, because this president and these extremists are going there. Do not kid yourself. … That’s why they wanted the Supreme Court, and that’s why we had to pass this law… We point in the exact opposite direction…” (7:05 mark of the video above).
A principal deception of the Progressive abortion-rights argument was also part of Governor Cuomo’s remarks: “…I believe we have to go a step further and do a constitutional amendment, so no governor, no legislature, no political swing can ever jeopardize a woman’s right to control her own body…” (7:53 mark of the video above). Equating abortion with a woman’s rights over her own body is a strawman argument. The real issue is whether the life developing inside a woman is considered a person and worthy of protection under the 14th Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis mine)
Not to be outdone by their neighbors to the north, Virginia passed their own abortion legislation (below).VA House Bill 2491
Virginia House Bill 2419 made abortions legal from conception through birth, lowering the threshold from three to one where a physician must determine that the continuation of the pregnancy may impair the woman’s physical or mental health if an abortion is to be performed legally during the third trimester (VA HB 2419, p. 2). The video below is taken from the House committee hearing where Delegate Kathy Tran presented the bill.
While responding to a question regarding third-trimester abortions, Virginia Governor Northam ignited a firestorm of controversy by saying, “…so, in this particular example if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired…” (1:11 mark of the video below).
The specific provision in question (§ 18.2-74.3) states: “Measures for life support for the product of such abortion or miscarriage must shall be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability” (VA HB 2419, p. 2). To be clear, ”the product of such an abortion” is legalese for a child that survived an abortion, yet even if the child survives, life support is only provided if “there is any clearly visible evidence of viability.”
Although it helped establish Roe v Wade as the legal precedent for abortion since 1973, viability is also a strawman argument. The real issue is not whether the life developing inside a woman is viable, it’s whether that life is considered a person and worthy of protection under the 14th Amendment.
Before Roe v Wade, the gift of life was recognized from conception, as illustrated by Lennart Nilson’s photo essay ‘Dreams of Life Before Birth’ that was featured on the cover of Life magazine in 1965. Click the image below to view the essay and the rest of his groundbreaking photos.
After Roe v Wade, an unborn child was deemed disposable until gestation reached 24 weeks when the child was judged viable.
In response to these bills, President Trump urged Congress to “pass legislation to prohibit the late-term abortion of children who can feel pain in the mother’s womb” during his State of the Union address.
In addition to the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act” legislation already resubmitted by Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) in January, Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) introduced Senate Bill S.311, otherwise known as the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Act,” which states, in part:
Congress finds the following:
If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.
Any infant born alive after an abortion or within a hospital, clinic, or other facility has the same claim to the protection of the law that would arise for any newborn, or for any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.
Unfortunately, S.311 failed to attain the 60-vote threshold necessary to move forward, defeated largely along party lines, except for three Democrats: Bob Casey (D-PA), Doug Jones (D-AL), and Joe Manchin (D-WV). President Trump noticed.
Senate Democrats just voted against legislation to prevent the killing of newborn infant children. The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies AFTER birth….
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 26, 2019
What changed between 1965 and 1973? How did the focus shift from the miracle of life before birth to one of viability? More importantly, how did we go from protecting the “viable” unborn in 1973 to the inability to protect against infanticide today?
As previously stated, the real issue in the abortion debate is not women’s rights or viability. The real issue is whether the life developing inside a woman is considered a person and worthy of protection under the 14th Amendment. Senate Bill S.311 attempted to address the issue of personhood, but it only established personhood for the born, not the unborn.
When does life (and personhood) really begin?
Dr. Richard Dawkins, an ambassador of Darwinism, asserts that life on Earth began with “The origin of the first self-replicating molecule” (Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Directed by Nathan Frankowski. 2008.).
If science agrees that life began on Earth by virtue of the first self-replicating cell, science should also agree that life in the womb begins once fertilization and self-replication start at conception. Once conceived, what is the life developing inside the woman going to be if not a person? If personhood is not equal to life itself, and viability is the only measure of personhood, our society is on a very slippery slope where survival of the fittest takes on a whole new meaning.
At the core of all these obtuse arguments is the value we place on life itself. Is life precious because we are created in the image of God and worthy of preservation, or is life simply the result of millions of happy accidents over billions of years?
Charles Darwin published his seminal work On the Origin of Species Nov. 24, 1859, introducing the concepts of evolution and survival of the fittest. As a result, a new religion was born, and its adherents will not tolerate dissent. That’s why the concept of intelligent design is virtually forbidden in public schools and institutes of higher learning, as Ben Stein illustrated in Expelled.
Unfortunately, adherents to the religion of Darwinism fail to recognize the often-overlooked closing sentiments Darwin penned in the last two paragraphs of On the Origin of Species.
On the Origins of Life
Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual…
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved (pp. 424-425 – emphasis mine).
Thankfully, a new bread of bold scientists are challenging the evolutionary status quo of Darwinism. It’s about time! The flawed theory Darwin proposed 160 years ago needs to be corrected. There is no conflict between creation and science.
It’s also time for our elected officials to exercise their constitutional authority to overrule the damage done by 9 unelected justices and Roe v Wade. It’s time for them to utilize what may be proven from science to put an end to the abortion debate once and for all by (1) confirming life begins at conception and (2) establishing a constitutional amendment protecting the unborn.