The 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade brought with it an avalanche of op-ed pieces, which could mostly be put into one of two categories: Clarion calls from the pro-aborts intended to rally the troops to prevent erosion of their reproductive rights, and weak-kneed quasi-historical perspectives attempting to explain how we could fall into such evil from the other side.
Typical of the latter is an essay entitled “Saving the Trees and Killing the Children,” by American Thinker columnist Kyle-Anne Shiver.
She starts off strong…
What can be said of a society that has reached such a ludicrous level of moral confusion that it cannot even make the simplest value judgment, cannot even distinguish between the value of a tree and the value of a newly conceived, perfectly innocent, unique human being formed in God’s own image?
But Shiver never answers her own question. Instead, she takes a trip down memory lane, but it seems like false memories…
Whenever I try to describe for young people today what life in middle-class America was actually like in the 1950s and 1960s, they tend to stare at me as though I must have lived in a convent. It’s truly difficult for them to imagine a time in which sex was not the center of everyday life, nor the be-all and end-all of teenage and adult existence, a time in which self-control was an admirable trait and fully expected in the entire realm of civil society. Even into my early 30’s, I had never known a single woman to be pregnant out of wedlock, much less one who had ever considered having an abortion.
The last sentence is so absurd as to not even merit comment. As to a fixation on sex being something new, and a reason behind Roe, even if that were true—and it most assuredly is not—Shiver should do better than creating excuses for the pro-abortion crowd. Yet, that becomes her theme, along with a sick portrayal of most of “us” as being victims—misled by a few zealots.
In 1973, due to a dire lack of valid information about life in the womb, it was quite possible for good people to look the other way and somewhat reasonably expound a pro-abortion position. But advancements in medical technology, ultra-sound especially, have turned those arguments to the kind of meaningless, ignorant gibberish, which has been used to defend the purely indefensible genocides that we modern people had supposedly left behind to less “enlightened,” less “progressive” folks.
Thanks to a relatively small cadre of militant feminists and their judicial enablers, we Americans have permitted what is, I believe, the most heinous genocide ever perpetrated against a class of completely helpless human beings. Our own offspring.
Shiver neglects to explain how those who have gone before us, for essentially all of human history, and who surely suffered from an even worse “lack of valid information about life in the womb,” could have regarded abortion as the abomination that it is.
She concludes by wondering “What were we thinking?” and offering her petition: “Oh God, have mercy on our souls. We knew not what we were doing.” Yes, indeed, we should beseech God for His mercy as to what was wrought by our leaders, but, they knew quite well what they were doing. Still, I cannot confess the sins of others, and object to the “we.”
Interestingly, Shiver invokes the Green movement to title her article, but fails to connect the dots. Early on, the environmental movement was hijacked by the Left, at about the same time that the universal abortion juggernaut was headed to the Supreme Court. Roe is far more than bad law. It is the classic example of “justice delayed is justice denied.” The inevitable nature of pregnancy meant that Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) would have her baby, so Roe represents one of the very few cases whereby the plaintiff wins, but is denied their version of justice.
As such, Roe was a set-up from the beginning. McCorvey could have gone to many other states to have her abortion, but was convinced by fellow lesbians Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee to become the test case. Thus, in a manner that only Leftists could love, these so-called women’s rights attorneys exploited another woman, all in the name of feminism. You can’t make this stuff up.
The best part of the story is that McCorvey changed to the pro-life position, renounced her lesbianism, and became Catholic.
If you are looking for a reason behind Roe, go back to those halcyon days recalled by Shiver. Beneath the 20 cent/gallon gas and simpler life, there was also a vague discontent in the aftermath of World War II—a feeling that for all the lives lost and money spent, we had somehow lost the peace. More than that, the Federal government was growing exceptionally quickly, and people sensed that they were becoming less free. The more cynical started to think that they were getting screwed.
No worries, though, the Feds will protect you, and in 1963 came up with Murray v. Curlett and Abington v. Schempp, protecting those who felt so threatened (surely less than 1 percent of Americans) against God in schools, and eventually in the public square. Then, in 1964, civil rights, originally taken away by the government, were magically restored under the rubric of the Feds granting them in the first place. Finally, in 1973, with Roe, the Feds granted you the right to kill your offspring. Now, in the name of “rights,” anything—no matter how draconian—would be possible.
Now, you can…
- Pull the plug on your comatose wife despite being awarded a fortune specifically for her care
- Under a tortuous reading of the Constitution’s supremacy clause, allow disgraced FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi to beat state charges of manslaughter in the killing of Vicky Weaver at Ruby Ridge, thus establishing a frightful precedent
- Under force of arms, return a little boy to Cuba, against the dying wishes of his mother (in the name of his father’s rights), thus reversing more than 30 years of policy
Missing in all this, of course, is that rights come from no other place than God, and can only be denied by government. Roe succeeded in convincing the amoral and the weak-willed that this precept can be reversed, while begging the big question that a mortal court can actually be “Supreme.”