Stop the Tyrants Part II

Our Moral Duty

§B   Defending Human Life

The judiciary's unethical and immoral abortion jurisprudence threatens more than the lives of pre-born or partly-born babies. Even children who are completely born are at risk! In Chapter 4, Good-Bye to Decency, I cited Nurse Stanek's testimony about babies being "aborted" alive and left to die. Such actions are in full sympathy with the moral sense that produced the Stenberg ruling.

Congressman Charles Canady, of Florida, has wondered what the Stenberg ruling might mean for babies who survive attempts at late-term abortion:

The logical implications of the Stenberg Court's holding are both obvious and disturbing. Consider what the Stenberg decision means for a child who survives a botched abortion and is born alive. If the right to abortion entails the right to kill without regard to whether the child remains in the mother's womb, it would seem to follow that infants who are marked for abortion but somehow survive have no legal right to appropriate medical care, or any at all.
And if a child born alive after a botched abortion does not receive the protection of the law, what is to prevent an abortionist from simply delivering a child and then killing it? ...If partial-birth abortion is protected by the Constitution, why not "post-birth abortion"?

Congressman Canady made this statement when he introduced the Born Alive Infants Protection Act to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. This bill granted legal protection to all babies born alive, even after a failed late abortion. The need for such a law is not illusory. Let me quote again from George Will's column, "An Act of Judicial Infamy":

America's [post-Roe v. Wade] slide into the culture of death was manifest Sept. 26, 1996, during a Senate debate on partial-birth abortion.
Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum asked Democrats Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey this: Suppose during an attempted partial-birth abortion the infant, instead of being just almost delivered, with only a few inches of skull remaining in the birth canal, slips entirely out of the canal. Is killing the born baby still a "choice"? Feingold and Lautenberg said it was still a matter between a mother and her abortionist. (C-SPAN captured this exchange. The Congressional Record was subsequently falsified.)

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) vehemently opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, calling it an assault on Roe v. Wade. NARAL's opposition to defining all born babies as persons, and Feingold's and Lautenberg's support for post-natal "freedom of choice," are perfect demonstrations of the errosion of respect for human life caused by the judiciary's despicable abortion rulings!

Even before the Stenberg ruling, there were people in this country suggesting that infanticide should be legal. Princeton Professor Robert P. George has testified to the House Judiciary Committee about the views of one of his colleagues: Peter Singer. Professor Singer has long insisted that human beings do not become "persons" until they achieve a certain amount of ego-consciousness -- well after birth. He considers all infants to be non-persons. Mr. Singer is not alone in his views. A professor at American University has written that human infants do not "possess in their own right a property that makes it wrong to kill them."

As you can see, our pro-partial-birth abortion judges have their supporters in the academic community. And these supporters would certainly not be alarmed by a Supreme Court ruling that allowed the killing of fully-born babies!

Our federal judiciary's extreme disregard for the lives of all pre-born and mostly-born infants threatens all morality and decency in the United States. If they can successfuly make law their denial of the personhood of the most helpless and innocent of all human beings -- babies -- then they can, at their own whim, officially dehumanize anyone. All respect for human life in the United States will be destroyed if these depraved judges are not stopped!

Your Stop the Tyrants Project Director is not being alarmist when he suggests that all respect for human life is in jeopardy. Many judges are willing to extend the federal courts' abortion jursiprudence into other controversies. Douglas W. Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Notre Dame, testified about this danger to the House Judiciary Committee. Let's read from Professor Kmiec's testimony:

The abortion license as stated by the Supreme Court now threatens to spawn other spurious "rights," like that of assisted suicide, a right that takes deadly aim... at the most vulnerable, and thus, expendable elements of our society -- the elderly, the disabled, and the poor.
This is not overstated. [The Casey decision] has been judicially transplanted by the Ninth and Second Circuits to find an assisted suicide right. This is not reassuring news to the disabled.

Professor Kmiec's concern for the poor, the disabled, and the elderly is not crazy: The federal judiciary has taken us from contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut), to abortion (Roe v. Wade), and then to infanticide (Stenberg v. Carhart). Can you honestly believe these judges are incapable of taking us from assisted suicide to involuntary euthanasia?

See the Chapter 5 Table of Contents.

The Stop the Tyrants Project [page 25]: Chapter 5 (Section B)
Page content and layout copyright © May 2001 by David A. Calvani