Finally Some Good News

In the midst of the sad and tragic news from Virginia Tech last week, another news story that would have made major headlines any other time has hardly been noticed. This is the news that the Supreme Court of the United States has (finally) upheld a ban on partial birth abortion. This is long overdue, and a positive sign for those in the pro-life community who have been anxiously waiting to see how our two newest members of the court would vote on life issues. Roberts and Alito did not disappoint. Now if we could just see Roe v. Wade overturned, we would really have something to celebrate.

Actually, from a purely legal standpoint, even if you’re not pro-life, Roe v. Wade in itself is simply bad law. The Supreme Court should have never gotten involved with this issue and should have left it up to the individual states to decide. I’m sorry to inform those on the left, but the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a woman a right to an abortion, nor does it guarantee a right to privacy as the Supreme Court has tried to interpret it in the past. If you think I’m making this up, just read the document for yourself. Come to think of it, that’s not a bad idea for four of our five Supreme Court Justices, as well. (Warning to all liberals: If you do read the Constitution for yourself, you may be shocked to find that there are lots of other things that you thought were in there that really aren’t. One example: a constitutional wall of separation between church and state. Sorry, it’s not there. Read it at your own risk.)

Getting back to last week’s ruling, let’s see how certain presidential candidates responded to the news:

-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling…

-Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC): I could not disagree more strongly with today’s Supreme Court decision.

A running theme in all three of their responses was that this ruling was detrimental to the health and well being of women in this country. Really? What about the health of the unborn child? Last time I checked, one person is always injured in an abortion. To put it more accurately, one person is always killed in an abortion. And of all the different ways an abortion can terminate the life of a baby, intact dilation and extraction is the most heinous.

Everyone, including those who support abortion rights, should abhor this gruesome procedure known descriptively as partial birth abortion. How anyone could support such a violent form of infanticide goes beyond my ability to comprehend. And the thought that there are people who support this practice that want to be President of the United States sends cold chills down my spine.

I’m not generally a one-issue voter, but if a person can support something like partial birth abortion, that tells me all I need to know about them as a candidate and as a person. In my mind, that individual has already forfeited any chance they ever had of receiving a vote from me.

What’s really sad about the abortion debate in this country is how it has become so politicized. Just take a look at a few well-known Democrats who were at one time pro-life and only changed their position after deciding to run for President:

-Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-MO) wrote in 1984: Life is the division of human cells, a process that begins with conception. I believe that the life of the unborn should be protected at all costs.

-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) wrote in a letter to a constituent in 1971: Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized -- the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.

-Rev. Jesse Jackson, in a letter to Congress in the 70’s, wrote: As a matter of conscience I must oppose the use of federal funds for a policy of killing infants...in the abortion debate, one of the crucial questions is when does life begin. Anything growing is living. Therefore human life begins when the sperm and egg join.

I should also point out that former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore were both pro-life at one time before deciding to run for the presidency as Democrats. Can you say sell-outs? And by that I mean these people sold out their moral convictions for the chance to be President of the United States.

Hard as it is to believe, the pro-abortion organization known as Planned Parenthood was at one time pro-life. They considered abortion the killing of a baby. Don’t believe me? In their 1963 pamphlet Is Birth Control Abortion?, page one reads: Is birth control abortion? Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely post-pones the beginning of life. Wonder how many people in that organization today would agree with that statement?

Let's face it: when the abortion issue for certain politicians quit being about life and started being about political gain, it was a dark day for the unborn in this country. Let’s hope last week’s Supreme Court ruling will start to turn the tide in favor of what is morally right rather than what is politically expedient.

President Bush has had to deal with a myriad of tough problems during the past six years, and he’s no doubt had his share of mistakes and missteps that have angered both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. His lasting legacy, however, may not be an unpopular war in Iraq or his dubious policies concerning illegal immigrants and border control. His lasting legacy may just be the contribution he’s made to the pro-life cause by his nominations for the Supreme Court of the United States.

And this new-look court will hopefully have an influence far beyond the pro-life movement. Wouldn’t it be great to see the Supreme Court revert back to being the branch of our government that interprets the law instead of writing it? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that the way the Constitution intended for it to be?