BY JACK BRAY
The Cullman Times
In this season of ghosts and ghouls, we seem to respect the undead more than the unborn. How unfortunate. Witness the popularity of television programs featuring blood sucking vampires and walking corpses, while in Texas, a new provision making it difficult for women to get an abortion is immensely unpopular. How unbelievable.
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed Texas to enforce a provision in the state’s new abortion law that requires doctors who perform the procedure to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. As a result, a third of the state’s 36 licensed abortion clinics have stopped providing abortions.
And, surprise of surprises, the Supreme Court has just upheld that court’s ruling.
Funny thing, though, if a pregnant woman is assaulted and her fetus is killed during the commission of a federal crime, it would be a violation of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act and the perpetrator would be prosecuted for murder. Yet, if she “chooses”, she can kill the fetus herself by abortion and not be prosecuted. What’s more, if a pregnant woman drinks too much alcohol, takes drugs or smokes and the child is born with defects, she can be prosecuted. Yet, if she “chooses”, she can kill the child before it’s born and not be prosecuted.
That’s how screwed up we are in this country.
The barbaric act, euphemized as ‘abortion’ , had always been legal from the days when our earliest settlers arrived. It wasn’t until the 1880’s before abortion was declared illegal. Surprisingly, it was the newly formed American Medical Association that was the driving force behind criminalizing this risky surgical procedure. Using the reasoning of “necessary abortions”, their motivation was to force those seeking abortions away from the back alley practitioners and into hospitals where profitable abortions would be classified as “physicians only”, with the operative word being “profitable”.
Almost a hundred years later, in 1973, the famous Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade, essentially made abortion legal. The Court considered the fetus not “viable” or able to live on its own before the first trimester. To many, it was just “a bunch of tissue”. Well, guess what? Once upon a time, each and every one of us was a bunch of tissue.
That Supreme Court ruling emboldened women by claiming that banning abortion violated their constitutional “ right to privacy ”. But, hello! The Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Ninth Amendment, however, does state that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." Presumably, abortionists have interpreted this as justification for claiming their constitutional “right to privacy”
At the end of the day, apparently it’s all about “choice” and “reproductive rights”. Pregnant women have placed their “right” to abort before the unborn’s right to life. And, incidentally, they have also excluded the husband’s right to participate in the choice even though he participated in the creation of that life.
And why? Why all the killing when there is a reasonable alternative? Isn’t just nine months of pregnancy ending in birth, leading to possible adoption and a future for a child better than a shorter term ending in death that robs the child of any future? Granted no pregnant woman easily chooses this savage procedure. The decision is typically motivated by multiple and diverse reasons. In the end, all you hear is “my body, my choice”. Choice, choice, choice.
Well, choosing nine months wouldn’t be the end of the world for her, but would be the beginning of the world for her child.
* Jack Bray is a writer and lives in Cullman. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org His author page