Abortion

First of all, the President of the United States has no authority regarding abortion. Zip. Nada. Nothing. Article II of the Constitution defines the Executive Power. It says nothing about abortion. It is not a suitable subject for national policy. If any criminal statute is going to be passed, that is properly a matter for the states, not the federal government. This is still a federal republic, even if it is a fact of life that our commerce is almost all interstate these days, and federal jurisdiction is a lot bigger than it used to be.

So its really not a significant issue in a campaign for president. But as a matter of moral leadership, Bill Clinton had it right when he said that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

Hardly anybody is “in favor of abortion.” Most of the rest of us don’t listen to those who think there is some liberating positive good to having an abortion. Any woman who has had an abortion knows there are physical, psychological and spiritual prices. ANY decision in life has prices, as well as, sometimes, benefits, or the benefit of avoiding even more painful prices.

To the extent that abortion is a spiritual question, we should look to spiritual means to prevent it, not look to government to do what is truthfully a very delicate job that requires reaching out one on one. History teaches that criminal laws concerning abortion do more harm than good.

The Supreme Court has never ruled that abortion is a good thing, nor that there is a constitutional right to abortion. The Supreme Court has ruled, on many subjects, that there are matters in our private and family lives that the government is constitutionally restrained from butting into. The Supreme Court has ruled that during the first trimester of pregnancy, abortion is one such matter, and to a lesser extent, during the second trimester as well.

Those who are opposed on principle to abortion may someday have cause to be thankful for the ruling in Roe v. Wade. Consider the possibility that a government may come to power in the United States committed to a vast program of social engineering. Suppose the newly elected congress passes a law requiring women to have abortion in certain circumstances: because the mother cannot provide for the baby, because it would be cruel to bring a severely deformed child into the world, to prevent a financial burden upon taxpayers and society... There are many legal advocacy groups who would rush into court for an injunction protecting women from enforcement of such a law, probably including the Pacific Legal Foundation and the Rutherford Foundation, not to mention Focus on the Family.

Lawyers for these organizations would find their best legal foundation in Roe v. Wade. If the government may not intervene, then the government may not intervene. Period. The government may no more decree that a woman must abort than the government may forbid abortion. Either the government has power over the decision, or it does not. The constitution is indifferent as to how a legislature exercises power it does have. The constitution only defines whether the government does or does not have authority to act. As to the third trimester, the state’s power to intervene derives ONLY from the development of a fetus much closer to independent viable existence as a distinct person. If the fetus is not a person, the state may not intervene at all. If the fetus is a person, the state may intervene only to protect, not to destroy, as with any other person.

Let’s also remember that it is an arrogant myth that electing a president can sway the Supreme Court. Presidents have always been shocked, surprised, disappointed by their Supreme Court appointees. Rightly so. On the court, as judges, men and women have assumed the very real responsibilities of an independent branch of government. This is not unlike the appointment of Thomas a Beckett, by England’s King Henry II, to be Archbishop of Canterbury. Thomas warned his good friend Henry, if you make me Archbishop, I will act like an Archbishop. And he did. A president who approaches Supreme Court appointments with suitable humility will look for distinguished, well qualified judges, knowing that the president can never predict how they will decide any particular case.

Roe v. Wade is a fine legal framework for the power of the state to intervene in a personal or family decision. That said, many things can and should be done to make the individual decision to seek an abortion as rare as possible. The most obvious is, every person who is morally opposed to abortion should make the offer to a pregnant woman, whatever you need, to carry that baby to term, I will provide it. That is a responsible way to act on pro-life principles. We should all be prepared to pay the prices of acting upon our beliefs; it is cheap to say to another, you pay this price, because I believe you should, and I will call the police if you don’t do it my way.

There are steps government can take also, steps which promote the general welfare and the public good, which will make abortion increasingly rare. Some of the lowest rates of abortion are found in European nations where the operation is legal, and the social safety net strong. Some of the highest rates of abortion are found in nations where abortion is strictly punished by law, and there is virtually no social safety net.

We need to move beyond the two failures of the 20th century: giving any woman who has a baby eighteen years of welfare, or putting mothers to work full time when their youngest child reaches the age of two. But we have to assure pregnant women that any baby they choose to carry to term, will have a healthy future available. Children take time, providing for children costs money. Unfortunately, government is not and cannot be the village that raises a child. Private initiatives, local community initiatives, and stable families, are indispensible. Government, especially the federal government, can only foster opportunities and provide essential resources.