Abortion Debate Rages On

A landmark decision was handed down today by the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of banning certain abortion procedures. The court voted 5-4 to uphold a ban passed by the U.S. Congress on a certain type of so-called partial-birth abortion. In this procedure (and I am over-simplifying here), performed after twelve weeks of the pregnancy has passed, the fetus is partially extracted from the womb, its skull is pierced, killing it, and the rest of the extraction is then carried out. Sounds pretty gruesome to me. The court made the correct decision.

This ruling does not affect the vast majority of abortions. According to information taken from the above referenced article, approximately one million abortions are performed every year, and 90% of those take place within the first twelve weeks. In 2000, the last year data is available for this type of abortion, 2,200 of these dilation and extraction procedures were performed. If those numbers remained fairly constant, we’re talking about 2,200 procedures out of 1 million being affected. Do the math… that equates to 1/5 of one percent, hardly a number that should cause alarm among all of the “abortions for everyone” activists.

Don’t get me wrong… I am staunchly, absolutely, and unequivocally in the “pro-choice” camp. As much is it bothers me personally (there actually are forms of preventative birth control, ya know), I recognize the right of a woman to have absolute dominion over her own body. And it is more complicated than that…

There comes a point when the embryo growing in the woman’s belly takes shape and becomes a little human with fingers and a heart and some actual brain activity. When exactly is that magic point where it is no longer a tadpole (complete with tail) and could be considered a baby with full rights as a separate life? Great question… Now, I’m no doctor… I don’t even play one on TV, but it seems to me that the medical community should come up with some kind of reasonably agreed upon point where, were the fetus outside of the womb, it could survive. Of course I am not talking about surviving completely on its own. Not even a full term baby could do that (they don’t generally have the skills to get a job to help them earn money for food just yet). No, what I mean is that if the baby could survive, like many prematurely born babies (with hospital help) do, outside of the womb, then maybe we should be considering it a little human life even when still inside of the womb. No one would argue that it should be legal to kill a one day old baby. Why should it be any different for a baby still in the belly (again, assuming it can be reasonably called a “baby” at this point)?

Personally, I say we make all late-term abortions illegal (except in extenuating circumstances, of course). By the time the first trimester ends, the woman has had ample opportunity to decide whether or not she wants to have the baby. Remember, 90% of all abortions take place in the first trimester. This is a sound and responsible (?) practice.

Now then… a note about the particular article referenced above… One thing I cannot stand is poor journalism. The following is taken directly from this article, written by the Associated Press:

“It was the first time the court banned a specific procedure in a case…”

This is passive-aggressive editorializing. The court didn’t ban this procedure. The Supreme Court does not have the power to create laws that “ban” anything. The United States Congress does have that power. By using the term “ban” the AP article implies that it was the justices of the Supreme Court who made the law, and not Congress. No, the Supreme Court upheld the ban of this procedure, which is something different entirely. The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on issues of constitutionality. Agree with this decision or not, the court simply ruled that the ban is indeed constitutional. They did no “banning” themselves.