|
Responsibility #93
To the People of the United States of America:
7th postscript, February 1995, Moral Security. At the close of the last RESPONSIBILITY paper, it was stated that the moral security of the United States of America has been degraded, perhaps beyond the point of no return, by the 1973 abortion decision, and other "Amendments" to the Constitution by the Supreme Court. It was also stated, that as a result of the judicial error of Roe v. Wade, of the order of 30 MILLION lives of developing human beings have been sacrificed.
That number represents the number of abortions that have been performed, purportedly in accordance with the arbitrary trimester formula invented by the Supreme Court, to regulate which babies in the womb would be permitted to live, and which could be deprived of life. As the States, one or more at a time, tried to reduce the carnage, the Supreme Court was debased to the position of an Executive agency, trying to adjust the formula to the political winds--a cameo role which it plays to this day.
This was particularly true with the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, and the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Robert P. Casey. The so-called pro-choice forces feared and ranted that those cases might lead to the reversal of Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court did recognize the groundlessness of the trimester formula. But it put stare decisis, and its fear of the reputation of the Court, above justice and the moral security of the nation. It clung to the thin thread of the indefinable, and floating, concept of "viability".
The argument of viability has no merit. Notwithstanding the question of ensoulment, the life cycle of the human being begins at conception, and completes on the average for Americans, at somewhat less than 80 years from birth. The human body and mind are throughout that life cycle undergoing development, and deterioration and redevelopment.
In the 22 years since the Supreme Court set its arbitrary formula, Americans and the Court have witnessed awesome advances in medical science and practice, effecting the initiation of life, and its viability in or out of the womb in the normal 9 months gestation period. For good or evil, the medical industry can now by-pass the direct marital act that results in procreation. With advances in neonatal knowledge and procedures, hospital equipment, mother's diet and health care, etc., the 9 months gestation period can be further and further compromised, with higher and higher probabilities that the babies will survive.
Basing a criteria for permissibility of willful abortion on viability (the capability of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus) is a non sequitur. No human being is viable on his own.
During gestation, the capability of the unborn baby to continue to live is dependent on the primary, secondary, and tertiary "wombs" provided by the mother, the family (or societal substitute therefor), and the governments, respectively. Upon birth, in the general case, whether premature or full term, the new born's viability is dependent upon the womb provided by a medical facility--which womb, and the duration of its use, is usually tailored to the condition of each individual infant.
Any mother or father will attest to the fact that no infant, no baby, no toddler, no young child, aye no teenager, is viable, without their devoted attention in the womb that they continue to provide. It is frequently evident in our daily newspapers, that the courts realize this; parents, who assume that their children are viable, and leave them un- or inadequately attended, are prosecuted.
Finally, under what are now "normal" conditions, the degree of viability of each person (minor or adult) is a function of the effectiveness of the governments which we put in place, adequately fund, and from which we demand Constitutional performance.
So long as the Supreme Court will not disavow Roe v. Wade, many other persons are vulnerable to death sentences, by some new rights and privacies to be inferred into the Constitution. God only knows how the nation will finally seek to pull out of its economic miasma (unending deficits, huge national debt, uncontrolled health costs, etc.).
Some liberation group might convince the Supreme Court, that the public ought to have a right to control their economic bodies. The Court need not invent another formula. Health costs (and, like abortion, inconvenience) could be contained by permitting the aborting of other lives, of those who are not "viable". These could include the high cost cases of neonatal babies, those with Alzheimer's disease, paraplegics, those in comas, bed-ridden patients, the old and feeble, etc., etc., etc.
The vulnerability of the nation, to further degradation of its moral security, through the weaknesses of the Supreme Court, was boldly discussed in a 1991 essay, written by a former legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. [Reprinted in the book "The Ethics of Abortion--Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice", revised edition 1993]
In the essay entitled "Constitutional Practice: On the Origins of Privacy", the author brags [I was] "the lawyer who first submitted the notion of a modern constitutional right of privacy to the Supreme Court". He goes on to describe, how easy it is to get around the stability of the law, as championed by the Court. Lawyers need only "show that the present case involves merely an incremental change, not a wholesale break with the past." A small bite at a time, and we can achieve any ambitious objective, through the Supreme Court, no matter how despicable the end result would be deemed if presented up front.
Such an awareness, by attorneys of the ACLU, is consistent with the position taken by the anti-federalist Brutus in 1788. He wrote that the Supreme Court would "operate in the most certain but yet silent and imperceptible manner .... [to effect] an entire subversion of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the individual states". That is what has happened in the train of Supreme Court cases, starting with Griswold v. Connecticut, and climaxing in Roe v. Wade.
Bite by bite that train led from a relatively minor, moral relaxation for married couples, to the condoning of birth control by infanticide of babes in the womb. 22 years after Roe, the train has continued the attack on the moral security of the nation--to the point of widespread debasement of the individual, and the threatened loss of the family as the basic buttress of the USA.
In effecting "Amendments" to the Constitution by judicial decree, the Supreme Court denied We the People of each State, their Constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion, and the freedom of speech. The very heart of Christianity is the admonition to go out into the world, and tell the good news. The people of each State were doing that in the State legislatures, with the result of the State laws, that the Court overturned, by its inference of rights and privacies, not literally in the Constitution.
Had the Court made a judgment only, that a proposed right (not overt in the Constitution) would be just, and left the Congress and the States, to properly amend the Constitution, it would have abided by its legitimate role. Had this been done, We the People (through our elected representatives) could have stood up in the federal and State assemblies, and spoken against the immoral "legislation" that the Court "enacted". Without a doubt, those who were seeking the new "freedoms", would not have been able to muster the 2/3s and 3/4s votes, necessary to so taint the Constitution.
This is the cause celebre, that has caused the on-going mini civil war. The righteous people, who seek to rescue our innocents from death, have tried every means to reduce and end the killing. Christ promised that the Church would be with his followers to the last days. Like the opposition to slavery, and segregation, the fight against abortion will not end.
Stopping the "supremeness" of the Supreme Court, should be the top order of business, for the proposed "Conference of the States". A number of remedies can be postulated. The one advocated by Thomas Jefferson would be most appropriate; i.e., a veto power over the Judiciary (say a 2/3s vote of the Congress and the acquiescence of the President).
Publius IV
|