This Jan. 22 will mark 38 years of legalized child killing. How has what we’ve been doing worked?
On Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2011, the National Right to Life Committee issued a press release with the following headline:
- REPORT: ABORTION NUMBERS ESSENTIALLY UNCHANGED
More than 100,000 unborn children aborted monthly
The Guttmacher Institute says we’re still killing 1.2 million babies per year.
I have a strategic question: If we were playing football and you were losing 38 to zero, would that be the time to play guarded and defensively? Isn’t it when you’re winning that you play cautiously so as not to risk losing your lead?
Thirty-eight years of virtually unrestricted abortion on demand: Our cautious, incremental strategy has failed.
I’m not one to bash any pro-life effort by anyone. If one group wants to ask for a millimeter of a loaf of bread and celebrate the crumbs, I support them and celebrate with them. If another wants to pass a bill that will save a few dozen or a few hundred lives, I support them. If others attempt to pass an amendment to protect all the babies at once, I support their efforts, as well.
In fact, not only did I not oppose incremental efforts, I have spent my life on the incremental approach and worked to pass the Woman’s Right to Know Law (and 24-hour waiting period), parental consent, fetal homicide, the partial-birth abortion ban, clinic regulations and bills that defunded all abortions in the state.
These were good. They saved some lives, but the fact remains that abortion continues virtually unrestricted for any reason at any time before birth.
With due respect, and I do mean respect, to those who disagree, I am compelled to make the case for passage of the Ohio’s soon to be introduced legislation called the Heartbeat Bill, which will protect babies whose hearts have begun to beat.
Some say it’s not the right time for a bill that protects most every baby. We’ve waited 38 years, with more than 50 million babies dead, how much longer do they think we should we wait?
I understand the eventual necessity of being able to count to five on the Supreme Court. But let me ask you, did we rule out passing the partial-birth abortion ban because the Supreme Court might say no? They DID say “no,” in 2000, by a 5-4 decision.
Congress passed it again. President Bush signed it again. And it was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 18, 2007, by a 5-4 vote.
While we all celebrated that victory, we must first remember that it all started with an Ohio bill that was first struck down by a federal judge.
Because after Ohio passed that 1995 law that was struck down, subsequent laws were then passed in: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
Then, on April 18, 2007, for the first time since 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed a brutal method of abortion.
That is why the argument that our first attempt might fail isn’t valid. Trying and failing at first can lead to great victories.
Why heartbeat and not conception? Of course, I also want to protect babies from conception. But my answer is the same as why I’m not proposing a Personhood Amendment. I was a part of the South Dakota efforts. And while we stand at the burning day-care building, I’m not convinced that we can yet carry out all the babies at once. I want to, I’ve tried to and will keep trying, but if we can’t yet carry them all out with one trip, the next best thing is to try and get most of them now.
Science has already provided a yardstick that is more definitive than viability – and far more protective of children – the heartbeat. It is an educational dream. But unlike the partial-birth abortion ban, it doesn’t just educate. It is designed to educate and protect the majority of babies.
Does that hurt our chances of later protecting children from conception? Some would argue the approach aimed at fetal pain sets the precedent that before the baby is known to feel pain, it’s OK to kill them. Or worse yet, that all we have to do is anesthetize the baby first. I don’t think that’s our best approach, but any effort that provides any protection is more than we have now.
If 95 percent of the babies are all the lives we could save, as Dr. Jack Willke said this bill would do, I’ll happily take that over 40 more years of cautious crumbs that save virtually no one.
And since when is our responsibility to do all we can to protect lives excused because Justice Kennedy might not like it? Are we supposed to sit on our hands and do only things that please this immoral man? I say we keep knocking on that door, followed by another state that knocks on that door, followed by a dozen other states that pound on that door until they see that we are not going to sit quietly and cautiously, worried about offending these tyrants. No, I’d rather be like the persistent widow and keep knocking so that even an unrighteous judge will finally have to give us the justice we seek.
Keep knocking. Every way we can – including a way we haven’t yet tried – with a bill that educates and protects most every child: The Heartbeat Bill. And you won’t believe the cool way you can help at: http://www.Heartbeatbill.com!