|
by Thomas A. Glessner, J.D.
Although I expected and predicted that the U. S. Supreme Court earlier this year would decide that the ban on partial-birth abortion by the State of Nebraska was unconstitutional, I was nonetheless heartsick upon hearing news of the Court's decision which did just that in Stenberg v. Carhart. After reading this tragic decision, I agree with my friends at the Family Research Council that this ruling is the most radical, extreme decision ever by the Court.
This new decision not only affirms Roe v. Wade, but extends the right of privacy found in Roe to the right to brutally kill a child who is in the process of being born. The fine line between abortion and infanticide has now been dissolved officially.
I came to Washington, D.C. in 1987 with the high expectation that Roe v. Wade was going to be reversed and that I would be playing a role in achieving that reversal. In 1992 this expectation came to an abrupt halt as the Court, in a 6-3 decision, reaffirmed the central holding of Roe, which recognizes a woman's right of privacy that protects her decision to have an abortion. The subsequent election of Bill Clinton in 1992 made possible his appointment of two pro-abortion justices to the Court. These justices, Steven Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, voted with the majority to overturn the Nebraska ban on partial birth abortion. It now appears a reversal of Roe is as far away as ever.
While the loss of legal ground is disheartening, we should stop and assess what a reversal of Roe v. Wade would really mean. I believe that a mere reversal of Roe, without an accompanying cultural and social revival, would leave us far short of our goal of protecting innocent human life from abortion. In fact, I think it is reasonable to conclude that even if Roe were to be reversed by the Court in the near future, we would still have up to one million legal abortions annually.
A mere reversal of Roe without specific constitutional protection for the unborn does nothing to stop abortion. Rather, such a decision simply sends the abortion issue back to each state to make its own determination about criminalizing abortion. Some states would outlaw abortion, but many states would not.
Fourteen states now subsidize abortions through tax dollars. These states would most likely not criminalize abortion after a reversal of Roe. Included in this group are California and New York where more than half the annual 1.3 million abortions now take place. If abortion were outlawed in some states, women residing in those states would surely travel to obtain an abortion. It is easy to predict that there would be up to one million legal abortions each year in a post-Roe America. In fact, abortion proponents have already announced plans to set up travel arrangements for all women who would need them if abortion were outlawed in their states.
So what does all this mean for pregnancy help centers? Well, the work of pregnancy help centers goes on despite what the courts have and haven't done regarding Roe v. Wade. Even in a post-Roe America, life would not be much different. Because of the abortion culture in which we live, women would still seek abortions. Because of the commitment of those who promote ready access to abortion, this procedure would be available to those who sought it.
The work of achieving an abortion-free America goes beyond the necessity of obtaining legal protection for the unborn. It requires a renewed and intensified commitment from God's people to minister to a hurting world. To achieve an abortion-free nation, we must go beyond the politics of abortion and minister one-on-one to women in crisis. Abortion will end as pregnancy help centers expand their services to reach more women who are vulnerable to the lie that abortion is a quick and easy solution to unwanted pregnancies. Abortion will end as we minister to one life at a time with the message of hope and the gospel of love.
To those entangled by the deception and lies of the abortion culture, the mission of pregnancy help centers is critical. This mission will not change despite scandalous, erroneous, and illegitimate decisions from the Supreme Court.
|
