EDITORIAL

2/28/2006

Getting a Grip on Abortion Hysteria

The Left abandons reason and fact for emotional outbursts

By Bob Ellis

Editor

Since HB 1215, the bill to ban most abortions in South Dakota, passed the legislature last week, there has been almost nothing but nonstop vitriol, hyperbole, and hysteria--with more than a little of it coming from journalists.

I've also received a lot of email on the issue, most of it from out-of-staters who realize that if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, their state is also likely to ban abortion.  After all, if it was left up the the people instead of America's black-robed royalty, few if any states would permit it.  So let's get down to business and cut through some of the distortions and myths surrounding the recently passed abortion restriction bill.

One of the main protests I've read in recent mail to Dakota Voice (the mail that was coherent, anyway) is over the lack of a "health" exception in the bill. This exception was intentional, and no, it wasn't to kill women. Leftists have, as usual, proven themselves incapable of using anything in a mature, responsible fashion and have turned the "health" exception into an excuse to have an abortion that renders any restriction null and void: "I must have an abortion--this pregnancy would cause me to gain weight, which would hurt my health;" "I must have an abortion--this pregnancy would put a strain on my back, etc. which would hurt my health;" "I must have an abortion--this pregnancy would cause me to be depressed because I don't want it, which would hurt my mental health." Therefore, no "health" exception, because it would gut the bill, leaving it a useless husk. The bill does provide an exception to save the life of the mother, which is in keeping with the pro-life philosophy of the bill.

Another gripe the pro-abortion folks have is the legislature's lack of support for "emergency contraceptives." While there are some on the pro-life side who don't believe in contraception at all, the main reason for opposition to "emergency contraceptives" is that, while they can prevent pregnancy by preventing fertilization of the egg, they can also prevent the already fertilized egg from implanting in the wall of the uterus--which, since conception has already occurred, is an abortion. The FDA admits this is one of the ways it works, so it can't legitimately be said that pro-lifers are making it up. The unique person has already been created when the sperm fertilizes the egg; the embryo is just attaching itself to the mother's uterus to draw the life-giving nourishment he or she will need during the nine months until birth. By the same argument, you could withhold nourishment from an adult human being and not consider that murder. Anyone for that?

Some are upset that a bill (HB 1132) which would have prevented rapists from gaining access to the children of their rape was killed by the legislature.  The reason it was killed was because it had no provision for cases where adult women raped young boys, then became pregnant by them. Think that isn't a problem? Mary Kay Letourneau may be the most famous case, but she's far from the only one. There was Pamela Rogers who raped a 13 year old in Tennessee, Adrienne Raymond who raped a 15 year old boy in Oregon, Wendie Schweikert and an 11 year old boy in South Carolina, Carol Flannigan and an 11 year old in Florida, and the list goes on. I think the bill should have been fixed to deal with this, because we definitely need to protect rape victims, especially those who choose to keep a child who comes from a rape, from the perpetrators. However, let's not go off the deep-end and intimate that the South Dakota legislature is so anti-woman that they would want to allow a rapist access to the child he had produced through his crime. There are a fair number of women in the legislature for one thing, and some of them are de facto leaders in that body. What's more, while HB 1132 was "hoghoused" and turned into a completely unrelated bill, HB 1086 has passed, and it specifies: "If it is in the best interest of the child, the court may prohibit, revoke, or restrict visitation rights to a child for any person who has caused the child to be conceived as a result of rape or incest." It's not quite as direct as HB 1132, but unless I'm missing something, it should accomplish the same thing.

Perhaps the most common complaint about the abortion bill is the lack of a rape/incest exception. Probably all of us can at least in some way appreciate the horror a rape victim must go through--and likely most incest victims. If I was a woman and was raped, I certainly wouldn't relish the prospect of carrying the child of the rapist for nine months. I would also be torn apart at the thought of my wife or daughter being raped and then carrying a child from that rape for nine months.

But God gave us a mind to think with, in addition to our powerful emotions. No one could ever say it was "fair" to carry the child of a rape to term, but unfortunately (and I don't say this flippantly, just truthfully) life just isn't fair sometimes. If we accept that the fetus is human life--and DNA and other medical science tells us without a doubt that it is--then we would be ending a human life to abort even the child of a rape. The rape is a terrible crime, but we cannot undo that terrible crime by committing another one.

Heather Gemmen is a woman who was raped and became pregnant, but ended up carrying the baby to term, then keeping the little girl. Her incredible story can be read at Focus on the Family.

Even the U.S. Supreme court recognizes the dichotomy of respect for life and rape exceptions. The Supreme Court spoke to the “rape exception” and that inconsistency in 1973. It said in Doe v. Bolton, “The protection of the fetus when it has acquired life is a legitimate concern of the State. Georgia's law makes no rational, discernible decision on that score. For under the Code, the developmental stage of the fetus is irrelevant when pregnancy is the result of rape.” And as heart-wrenching as a pregnancy from a rape is, we must acknowledge rationally and intellectually that the life of the child is the same.

Examine the ultrasound of a child conceived of rape, and the ultrasound of a child conceived from love or lust, then point out the difference. Or look at a child born of rape, then a child born of love or lust, and identify the difference there--so far, no one has demonstrated that children born of rape have extra limbs, missing limbs, or any other abnormal genetic deformity.

The mother may end up adopting the child out after giving birth; no one could fault her for that. But this at least respects the child's most fundamental right: the right to live. It makes the best of a bad situation, which is sometimes all we can do, here on this imperfect earth.

There's nothing wrong with with having a different opinion.  But it should be based on the best facts available and grounded in truth wherever that can be found.  Intellectual honesty dictates we should all found our arguments on substance, rather than emotionalism.