Yesterday, the Supreme Court delivered
what is being called "the greatest victory for abortion rights since Roe v. Wade."
The
Texas law
struck down by the Court required abortion doctors to have admitting
privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the clinic so they could
treat patients who need surgery or other critical care. The law also
required abortion clinics to have hospital-grade facilities for the same
reason. Twenty-five other states had similar regulations.
The Court
determined
by a five-to-three vote that these requirements place an undue burden
on women exercising their constitutional right to an abortion. The
majority found that they provide "few, if any, health benefits for
women" and pose "a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions" as
well as "an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so."
Justice Clarence Thomas
dissented,
sharply criticizing the liberal judges' illogic and arbitrary
standards. He noted that the ruling "exemplifies the court's troubling
tendency to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to
speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue." Thomas emphasized that
"today's decision perpetuates the Court's habit of applying different
rules to different constitutional rights—especially the putative right
to abortion."
Here's evidence that he's right: the Texas law also included a ban on
abortion after twenty weeks, but it was unchallenged. My guess is that
abortion advocates have not attacked this provision (yet) because it is
so popular. According to a
recent poll,
the vast majority of Americans (including two-thirds of pro-choice
advocates) believe that abortion should be available only during the
first three months of pregnancy. So the twenty-week ban in Texas remains
in effect, for now.
Once again, unborn children are being used as political pawns.
Many of the politicians who support abortion do so for political
reasons. Advocating for "reproductive rights" is a winning strategy for
them in this day of ethical "tolerance." Unfortunately, many politicians
who oppose abortion do so for political reasons as well, knowing that
they serve constituents who are strongly pro-life. If they were as
staunch in their opposition to sex trafficking, slavery, and racial
prejudice, their pro-life support would be more consistent.
Ethicist Russell Moore is
right:
"The personhood and dignity of the unborn are not political wedge
issues; they are essential human rights." But as long as the majority of
Americans believe that a woman's body is hers to do with as she wishes,
this debate will continue and millions more lives will be lost.
How can those of us who believe that
life begins at conception respond?
First, we should continue to warn against the devastation of abortion.
Studies show
that women who have an abortion face an increased risk for substance
abuse, anxiety, depression, and other mental health problems. In fact,
they are 155 percent more likely to commit suicide. Knowing these facts
could change the popularity of abortion and undermine political support
for it.
Second, we must be consistently pro-life. Many pro-abortion advocates
see our opposition as political opportunism and a "war on women." Let's
prove them wrong.
We should advocate for adoption as well as against abortion. We should
care for the mother, father, and family as well as the unborn child.
Many women who choose abortion do so for financial reasons—we should
help them bear this burden so they can choose to give their children
life.
Third, we should grieve as our Lord grieves today. He creates every
precious child lost to abortion (Psalm 139:13–16). He loves those who
choose abortion, but he hates their grievous sin. He warns us not to
"shed innocent blood" (Proverbs 6:17)—no blood is more innocent than
that of a baby.
These are tragic days for America.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar