Final Chapter of Abortion Debate

Last week I began to answer the abundant claims of the "angry letter-writers" who replied to my earlier column on partial birth abortion (PBA).

For those who are new to "Harsh Light," partial birth abortion is a gruesome late-term abortion procedure designed to effectively kill fully formed unborn babies in the fifth through ninth month of pregnancy.

In partial birth abortion, the unborn baby is first delivered feet-first to the neck. Then a pair of scissors are rammed into the back of her skull. Finally her brain is suctioned out with a vacuum, and her skull is crushed.

Almost immediately following my first graphic (but accurate) description of PBA, I began to receive irate letters from readers. When not indulging in personal insult, the letters basically claimed that I was wrong on the facts of PBA. I was challenged to defend my statements.

Last week I began to do so, and I now continue:

Angry letter-writer claim #3 - The Supreme Court has already allowed for significant restrictions on abortion.

Truth - The Supreme Court has declared that abortion must be readily accessible through the ninth month, provided that there is a "health concern." In the 1974 case Doe v. Bolton, the Court defined health so as to include almost any factor, including ". physical, emotional, psychological, familial and the woman's age." In addition, the Court insisted that abortion doctors themselves be granted the power to determine whether or not there is a "health risk."

Thus, the truth of the law is that only one thing is required for convenience abortions in the last month before birth: a note from an abortionist stating that allowing the unborn child to live might possibly place "emotional, psychological, or familial stress" on the mother.

Angry letter writer claim #4 - A majority of Americans favor keeping partial birth abortion legal.

Truth - While slightly more Americans describe themselves as "pro-choice" (between 46 and 54 percent) than pro-life (between 39 and 48 percent), the real story is in the details. Most Americans are simply not aware that there are no significant restrictions on abortion. When asked about details, a clearer picture emerges.

In a 1999 poll conducted by the Center for Gender Equity, 50 percent of the nation (and 53 percent of women) favored making abortion altogether illegal (with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.) In a 1999 CNN/Time/Gallup poll, a full 61 percent of Americans favored a legal ban on partial birth abortion. These results are absolutely typical - on most questions of abortion, the majority of Americans are pro-life. This is especially true about partial birth abortion. See www.pollingreport.com/abortion to verify my stats.

Angry letter-writer claim #5 - The "pro-choice" position is mandated by the Constitution, a document which should be changed by judges to fit our times.

This is truly the "nub of the matter." In the last two weeks, I have demonstrated that partial birth abortion is a gruesome, dangerous and needless procedure - and I have noted that most Americans favor a legal ban on it. Despite this, PBA remains legal (and widely practiced) in the United States because the Supreme Court has declared unlimited abortion a constitutional right.

The duty of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution. In doing so, it is often called upon to place limits on the power and desires of American majorities. Thus, if the majority of North Carolinians were to attempt to prevent women from voting, the Supreme Court would be right to declare such action unconstitutional - and to overrule the will of the majority.

But this is because gender-based prohibitions on suffrage have been specifically prohibited by the Constitution - in the 19th Amendment. The American people used the process given them by the framers (the constitutional amendment process) to change the Constitution in an appropriate and democratic manner.

This is not what has happened with abortion - which existed (and was illegal) in 1787 and is not mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution was never democratically changed with an amendment to mandate abortion-on-demand; instead, the Court simply "changed " our Constitution by decree. Laws against abortion existed in 36 states in 1868 - and prior to Roe v. Wade, no court had ever found any of these laws to be in violation of the Constitution.

When seven justices mandated legal abortion in 1973, they were contradicting more than 100 years of judicial precedent and using the raw judicial power of the Supreme Court to "change" the Constitution without a constitutional amendment.

Our current national policy on abortion does not reflect the will of the people, and it results in the continuance of barbaric procedures like partial birth abortion. All of this is the result of an act of invention by seven justices of the Supreme Court, who chose in 1973 to declare their own policy preferences on abortion instead of recognizing that the Constitution is utterly silent on the issue.

If judges are free to invent the Constitution as they go, and if the Constitution is the final word in America, then judges have the final word on every American issue. Such an arrangement is fine for those whose highest political goal is the defense of partial birth abortion.

But it is not a democratic arrangement, and those of us (pro-life and pro-choice) who value American freedom and democracy should stare with careful scrutiny at a judicial branch of the government that has begun to consider itself the final arbiter of all American disputes - even those over nonconstitutional issues like abortion.

Craig Warner is a political science major who hopes that B.R. has burned that tape. He can be reached with any questions, comments or concerns at cmwarner@email.unc.edu.