Tuesday night, I was on “The Story” with Martha MacCallum on Fox News (you can watch that segment here if you missed it: https://youtu.be/ZWs7dnxz0Ns?t=1450 )
The topic was a push by pro-life groups for the Supreme Court to review a ruling by a federal court that an Indiana law signed by then-Gov. Mike Pence was unconstitutional. It requires abortion doctors to inform patients that abortions were not permitted if the reason for ending the pregnancy was the unborn baby’s race, color or potential for having a disability such as Down syndrome. Supporters hope that under the current SCOTUS line-up, the High Court will uphold the law.
There have been a number of state laws seeking to limit abortion in incremental ways. Courts have allowed some and struck down others, sometimes in ways that make you think protecting abortion was more important than even protecting the life of the mother. But the ruling striking down this law was especially appalling. We have many laws designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, gender or disability; but this court effectively ruled that the only people who can be legally discriminated against for those reasons, and in a way that is literally lethal, are children in the womb.
Pro-abortion forces (I will call them “pro-choice” when they start promoting the choice of not killing the baby as strongly as they do the choice of killing it) don’t want the SCOTUS to hear this because they’re afraid it will lead to more updates and restrictions on Roe v. Wade. Frankly, it should. Roe v. Wade dates back to 1973, and was based on judges with no medical training trying to grasp the state of prenatal science as it existed 45 years ago. Would you go to a doctor who hadn’t updated his medical knowledge in 45 years?
There have been rulings since that updated Roe v. Wade, but the courts still lag far behind the scientific advances made in understanding the processes of conception and gestation. I don’t see how it’s possible for anyone to continue to deny that life begins at conception and still claim to be a member of the “party of science.” But then, the left hardly demonstrates consistent logic when they argue that we need millions of immigrants because we don’t have enough workers, while defending a barbaric practice that’s slaughtered 60 million children over the past half-century who would have joined the work force.
As for the pro-abortion side’s fear and the pro-life side’s hope that the next case might lead to Roe v. Wade being overturned, I think both misunderstand what that would mean. It wouldn’t automatically ban abortion in the US. It would simply return the issue to the states, where it belongs, and where it resided before the SCOTUS found a hitherto-unnoticed right to kill unborn babies hidden in the Constitution. Some states likely would ban abortion, but others such as New York and California might remove all restrictions and see even more abortions.
Ultimately, the scourge of abortion is never going to be ended by a law or a court ruling. What that will take is for hearts and minds to change so that we all recognize the personhood of a child in the womb. When we get over the ridiculous self-delusion that an unborn baby is just a “mass of tissue” until the moment it’s born and miraculously turns into a person, then that child will be protected by the Fifth and 14th Amendments that say you can’t deprive a person of life or liberty without due process.
In the meantime, we should continue to pass and defend laws such as the one in Indiana. It may not be the ultimate solution, but anytime we can put a new hindrance on the wholesale slaughter of innocent unborn children, it's a step for a more civilized culture and society.