 Why are there no Abrotion Restrictions? (2 views) Subscribe   
  From:  David (DavidABrown)    8/5/2002 8:42 am  
To:  ALL   (1 of 2)  
 
  417.1  
 
From:  The Pro-Life Infonet www.prolifeinfo.org>
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject:   Abortion Advocates:  The Real Extremists
Source:   Boston Globe; July 28, 2002

Abortion Advocates:  The Real Extremists
by Jeff Jacoby

[Pro-Life Infonet Note:  Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for the Boston Globe.]

Why do professional abortion-rights advocates anathematize as ''antichoice'' 
anyone who favors even minimal regulation of abortion? Their absolutism would 
be seen as ridiculous in almost any other area of law. 

For example: Americans have a fundamental right to own and use land, but no 
one believes that land use should be entirely untrammeled. A great body of 
law has developed to regulate what people do with their land - from local 
zoning ordinances to common law nuisance remedies to federal wetlands and 
endangered-species statutues. Reasonable people can and do debate the wisdom 
of particular regulations. But nearly everyone agrees that there must be some 
restrictions on an owner's right to make use of his property. Only a crank 
would argue that to favor any sort of limitation at all is to be 
''anti-ownership'' or an enemy of landholders. 

To take another example, Americans have the constitutional freedom to express 
their views in public. But no one takes the First Amendment to mean that 
self-expression may never be restricted. Your right to free speech does not 
authorize you to utter slander, to threaten the life of the president, to 
falsely shout ''Fire!'' in a crowded theater, or to give perjured testimony 
in court. 

Yet when it comes to abortion, there is no such thing as a reasonable 
restriction - not to the abortion-rights spokeswomen whom we invariably hear 
from whenever the issue comes up. A 24-hour waiting period? Pre-abortion 
counseling to discuss possible risks or alternatives? Parental notification 
when a minor wants an abortion? A ban on partial-birth abortions? The 
politician who calls for such limits or the judge who upholds them can count 
on being slammed as a threat to ''reproductive rights'' and a foe of 
''choice.'' 

Just ask Priscilla Owen, the Texas Supreme Court justice nominated by 
President Bush to the Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals. She is by most 
accounts a restrained and thoughtful judge; the American Bar Association 
unanimously pronounced her ''well-qualified.'' But because in several 
teen-abortion cases she ruled that parental notification was required, she is 
being excoriated. Planned Parenthood calls her an ''anti-choice extremist.'' 
The National Organization for Women accuses her of ''disdaining women's 
rights.'' The National Abortion Rights Action League says she ''exemplifies 
the most extreme hostility to reproductive rights.''

But who are the real extremists here? In a new analysis, the Gallup News 
Service reports that ''in general, polling shows wide public support for 
parental consent laws - policies that are even more restrictive than parental 
notification.'' In 1996, a Gallup survey found 74 percent of Americans in 
favor of requiring parental consent for a minor's abortion. Since then, the 
level of support has gone even higher. In a 1998 CBS/New York Times poll, 78 
percent wanted parental consent. And in a Los Angeles Times survey two years 
after that, the figure was 82 percent.

Justice Owen insists her rulings are based on Texas law, not her own personal 
views. But if they do reflect her personal views, she clearly has lots of 
company. Are more than four Americans in five ''anti-choice extremists?'' Or 
is it NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood that are far outside the mainstream?

In poll after poll, a majority of respondents say that, as a general rule, 
abortion should remain legal and the government should not interfere with a 
woman's right to end her pregnancy. But when asked about restricting abortion 
in specific ways or circumstances, they often say yes. 

Thus, 86 percent of Americans would make abortion illegal in the third 
trimester (Gallup, 2000), and 63 percent would vote to ban partial-birth 
abortions. Mandatory pre-abortion counseling is favored by 86 percent of the 
public (Gallup 1996); a 24-hour waiting period by 79 percent (CBS/New York 
Times, 1998). (These all presuppose a healthy mother and child; Americans 
overwhelmingly support legal abortion when the mother's health is seriously 
threatened or when there is likely to be a serious defect in the baby.)

It makes sense that the public does not regard these limitations as 
unreasonable. Americans recognize that abortion is too serious and tragic to 
be undertaken lightly. They know that the pro-life slogan ''Abortion stops a 
beating heart'' is a statement of fact. So while they support reproductive 
rights, they do not support unfettered abortion on demand, for any reason at 
any time.

But that is largely what organizations like NARAL, NOW, and Planned 
Parenthood do support, which is why they vigorously oppose the kinds of 
abortion regulations that most Americans would endorse. That is their right, 
of course. But why should their radical viewpoint be the standard for 
defining ''prochoice?'' Prochoice is what most Americans are: In favor of the 
right to choose, but also in favor of common-sense limits on that right. For 
NARAL & Co. we need a more accurate term. I'd suggest ''pro-abortion.''

--
You can help women make positive, life-affirming choices when confronting an 
unexpected pregnancy. Please provide a link on your web site to Pregnancy 
Centers Online at http://www.pregnancycenters.org

--------------------




David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit   
Rate 
  
    
 


   From:  David (DavidABrown)    8/5/2002 8:36 pm  
To:  ALL   (2 of 2)  
 
  417.2 in reply to 417.1  
 
This is a good start!

 

Maybe there is hope for some type of reasonable restrictions after all!!

 

From:  The Pro-Life Infonet www.prolifeinfo.org
Reply-To:  Steven Ertelt infonet@prolifeinfo.org
Subject:   Bush Signs Born-Alive Infants Protection Act
Source:   Pro-Life Infonet; August 5, 2002

Bush Signs Born-Alive Infants Protection Act

Pittsburgh, PA (Pro-LifeInfo.org) -- At a ceremony in Pittsburgh to celebrate the rescue of nine trapped mine workers, President Bush signed a pro-life bill that provides legal protection to babies born alive following an unsuccessful abortion attempt. 

The Born Alive Infants Protection Act would guarantee that such children would have full legal rights, regardless of their stage of development, and must receive appropriate medical care. It came as a response to reports from a whistleblowing nurse that babies who had survived botched late-term abortion attempts were denied medical treatment and left to die.

Bush said he was with the miners and their families to "celebrate life, the value of life,'' a theme that carried over to the bill signing.

"This important legislation assures that every infant born alive, including an infant who survives an abortion procedure, is considered a person under federal law," Bush said. "The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is a step toward the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law."

"A child who is born has intrinsic worth and must have the full protection of our laws. Today, through sonograms and other technology, we can clearly see clearly that unborn children are members of the human family as well," he added. "They reflect our image, and they are created in God's own image."

"It is a step toward the day when the promises of the Declaration of 
Independence will apply to everyone, not just those with the voice and power to defend their rights," Bush concluded.

Pro-life groups welcomed the signing of the bill.

"Some newborn infants, especially those who are born alive during abortions, have been treated as non-persons," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "This bill says that every infant born alive, even during an abortion and even if premature or handicapped, is a full legal person under federal law." 

Fr. Frank Pavone, Founding Director of Priests for Life, stated, "This law makes it clear that the legal status of a child does not depend on whether anyone happens to want him or her. Rather, that child possesses the right to be protected simply because he or she is human, period."

Originally sponsored by now-retired pro-life Congressman Charles Canady, the bill passed the House of Representatives 380-15 in September 2000, but that bill was killed in the Senate by objection from one or more anonymous senators at the end of the 96th Congress. 

The new bill passed the House and Senate by voice votes this year after 
pro-abortion lawmakers and abortion advocacy groups scaled back their 
opposition to the bill. 

Bush invited several pro-life leaders and advocates to the ceremony including Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse who testified before a congressional committee about infants born alive during labor-induction abortions at the Chicago-area hospital where she worked; 
Gianna Jessen, a young woman who survived an attempted saline abortion in 1977; Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Congressman Steve Chabot (R-OH), the prime congressional sponsors of the bill; National Right to Life President Wanda Franz and NRLC legislative director Doug Johnson.


 



David A. Brown
Basic Christian: Forum
 
  
   Options  Reply Delete Edit  
 
