Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, January 22, 1993 TAG: 9301220414
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ANDREA SEXTON
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
20 YEARS LATER
IT HAS been 20 years since the Supreme Court established the right to abortion on demand throughout pregnancy. During that time, the lives of almost 30 million pre-born children have been destroyed.In spite of the work of millions of pro-life citizens, abortion remains legal for any reason at any time between conception and birth. Last July, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Roe vs. Wade. And now, President Clinton promises to subject all future Supreme Court nominees to a pro-abortion litmus test and to sign the "Freedom of Choice" Act.
Why, then, do some members of the abortion lobby - Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women come to mind - discuss the future as if legal abortion were a thing of the past?
Why the dishonest attempt to railroad FOCA through Congress by describing the bill as just a codification of Roe? Even Senate Majority leader George Mitchell admitted that FOCA "goes well beyond Roe."
That should be obvious. Roe, after all, does not prohibit parental consent and notification, informed consent, or health regulations of abortion facilities. Neither does it require public funding of abortion.
FOCA, phony amendments notwithstanding, would go beyond Roe in all these respects. It would, in fact, strike a blow at genuine freedom of choice.
There would be no choice for pro-life medical institutions, such as religious hospitals, that would be compelled to provide abortion.
No choice for taxpayers who would be required to fund elective abortion.
No choice for parents who would be deprived of the right to shepherd their daughters through crisis pregnancies.
No choice for women who would be deprived of necessary and relevant information before they make life and death decisions.
What kind of perspective would regard the provision of basic fetal development information as a threat to legal abortion? How does it affect the status of the law to tell a woman that her developing baby's heart has been beating since the third week after conception?
Aborton proponents have come increasingly to demand that abortion be viewed not just as a legal option but as the preferred choice. That is one reason for the compulsive opposition to any legislation casting doubt on the moral legitimacy or desirability of abortion, or granting the pre-born child the slightest consideration.
Understanding this absolutist position requires recognizing that those who hold it have a personal stake in abortion. Abortion is not like any other medical procedure because it necessarily involves the death of another human being. Each time a woman has an abortion, her choice serves as a small validation of abortion. Her abortion produces an emotional dividend, once again tangibly confirming in the minds of abortion promoters the moral fitness of their cause. It is as if sales volume somehow legitimized the product sold.
Thus, for the abortion industry, it becomes imperative to pass federal legislation to protect the giant emotional pyramid scheme which their business has become. Concerns about legal access to abortion become secondary. The primary focus shifts to separating vulnerable children from their parents, denying women access to critical information, and forcing those who feel uncomfortable with abortion to be participants in it in one way or another.
Most Americans are troubled by abortion on demand and favor some kind of regulation of the practice. Pro-choice Americans should understand that it is possible to be pro-choice without adopting the agenda of the abortion lobby. Those who are genuinely pro-choice should join with pro-life Americans in opposing an act that would preclude reasonable regulation of abortion and protect only the abortion industry.
Andrea Sexton of Salem is chairperson of the Virginia Society for Human Life.