Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, July 15, 1990 TAG: 9007160183
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: C-3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The governor has now been sent a bill that provides those exceptions. Instead of signing it immediately, he is waffling and expressing fears that it might not be constitutional, an issue that is not his to decide.
The abortion debate in Louisiana, like the one in Idaho last spring in which "pro-life" Gov. Cecil Andrus vetoed a measure that could have served as a court challenge to Roe vs. Wade, shows how political pragmatism and self-preservation have replaced reason, scientific evidence, personal testimony and the interests of the unborn.
Rape and incest are false issues in the abortion debate. They are loopholes that pro-abortionists use, not because these are the only exceptions they want, but because they have found them effective emotional tools to keep the door open to abortion on demand. Has any pro-abortionist ever agreed to prohibit all other abortions if granted the rape and incest exceptions?
According to the state's Department of Health and Hospitals, in Louisiana in 1988 (the latest year for which figures are available), only one person sought an abortion claiming she became pregnant as a result of rape or incest, but 15,684 abortions were performed for other reasons. Rape victims would have been protected under the vetoed bill.
That we have moved beyond evidence in the abortion debate was indicated by the following story told to me by Julie Makimaa. She, with several others, including Louisiana state Sen. Woody Jenkins, who corroborates her story, met privately in Gov. Roemer's office on June 7. Makimaa told the governor that she was one of those exceptions that Roemer would allow to be killed. She said that her mother was raped more than 20 years ago, became pregnant and decided to give Julie life instead of seeking what then would have been an illegal abortion. Julie, who lives with her husband and children in Springfield, Ill., says she is happy and fulfilled and grateful to be alive.
"After I had finished," Julie told me, "Gov. Roemer said that my story was nice, but that it didn't matter. He was not going to change his mind about exceptions. There was no sign of acceptance or a feeling of happiness for me and the special story I told. There was only that continuous hardened stare." So, confronted with a product of rape, Roemer still would allow for the killings of the few conceived by rape in order to placate the rabid pro-abortionists who want no restrictions at all.
Roemer has come a long way since his days as a Louisiana congressman. On Oct. 21, 1980, then-Rep. Roemer wrote a letter to a woman in Shreveport explaining his support for the Hyde Amendment which cut off federal funds for abortions.
In that letter, a copy of which was obtained from state Sen. Jenkins' office, Roemer said, "I can no longer in good conscience support the potential loophole represented by the rape and incest exceptions." The letter goes on: "The Hyde Amendment makes no exception to the legal fact that the fetus is a person. Therefore, after some education, a great deal of patience . . . and much research and prayer, I can unequivocally state for the record that I support the Hyde Amendment."
What has changed in the last decade? Certainly not the status of the unborn child. Perhaps Roemer is researching and praying less than he used to.
Roemer also co-authored the federal Human Life Amendment that would have prohibited all abortions nationwide. The only exception would have been to preserve the mother's life. Section 2 of that amendment said, "The word `person' applies to all human beings . . . including their unborn offspring at every stage of their biological development including fertilization." Section 3 stated, "No unborn person shall be deprived of life by any person."
While some believe the compromise measure which was born as a flag-burning law and transformed into a pro-life bill may be constitutionally flawed, Roemer will have a difficult time explaining a second veto to Louisiana voters, who are mostly pro-life, when he is up for re-election next year. Neither will he be able to explain why, when he had a good bill that might have challenged Roe vs. Wade, he failed to live up to his stated convictions. Los Angeles Times Syndicate
by CNB