Since January 22, 1973, a date that pro-lifers refer to as “Bloody Monday,” when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional state and federal laws restricting abortion in the case Roe v. Wade, those determined to curtail or end the practice of abortion have attempted several strategies. The effort to amend the Constitution has gone nowhere, as it takes a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress to send a proposed amendment to the states for ratification. State legislatures across the country have made gallant efforts to minimize abortion with laws restricting the practice in various ways.
One strategy has been to elect pro-life presidents and senators, so pro-life judges will then be nominated and confirmed to the federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court.
This strategy has produced uneven success. Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and the two Bushes put some judges on the Supreme Court that are considered pro-life; however, several of their nominees have been disappointments to that movement.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
The thinking in the pro-life community is that if Roe v. Wade were to be reversed or nullified, several states would enact laws further restricting the practice of abortion, and some would even outlaw it completely.
The state of Oregon, however, has passed the most openly pro-abortion law in American history, actually making the taking of an unborn child’s life a “right” that would be preserved by statute, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned by the Supreme Court. It was already the only state that has virtually no restrictions on abortion. Oregon taxpayers have paid for 52,000 abortions over the past 14 years, at a cost of $24 million.
In a bill passed last week by the Oregon Senate (which Democratic Governor Kate Brown is expected to sign), the state has gone even further. The measure, known as the Reproductive Health Equity Act of 2017, requires that insurance companies provide coverage for abortions, and also entitles illegal aliens to free abortion services.
These abortions, for both citizens and illegals, would be “free,” or taxpayer-funded, even if they are not considered medically necessary. The taxpayers will pay for the procedures, even if they are purely elective. Late-term as well as sex-selection abortions will be among these “free” procedures.
The law does allow some religious exemptions, as in the case of churches and religious non-profits, because of federal law. In those cases, however, were a woman working for a church, or other religious institution that has such an exemption and does not have to pay for it directly or through her health insurance policy, she would be entitled to an abortion paid for by the taxpayers.
This brings up an interesting hypothetical scenario: Would a church or other religious non-profit that opposes abortion as the taking of innocent human life be allowed to dismiss an employee who has an abortion?
Not everyone agreed with the action of the Oregon Legislature. Senate Republicans issued a statement denouncing the bill, saying that it is “nothing more than a political statement and a political gift card to Planned Parenthood that brought unnecessary drama and divisiveness to the end of the legislative session.”
Bill Diss, the founder of Precious Children of Portland, expressed similar thoughts, declaring that the new law is “fundamentally an abortion bill that will boost the coffers of abortion providers like Planned Parenthood.”
Some think the legislation is a reaction to efforts by President Trump and the Republican-majority Congress to pass laws restricting abortion, and allowing states to cut off federal funds to Planned Parenthood.
When the Supreme Court somehow found a right to abortion in the Constitution with its Roe v. Wade decision, it took a more liberal position on abortion than any state’s laws. In that 7-2 decision, the court claimed a right to an abortion (basically on demand) was based on a right to privacy, and that this right was in the “penumbras” (shadows) of the Bill of Rights. This is absurd, as no one really believes that James Madison had abortion in mind when he wrote the Bill of Rights.
The sad truth is — as this action taken by the Oregon Legislature illustrates — even if Roe v. Wade were rightly nixed at some point in the future, the grisly practice of abortion would still be legal in some states.
Photo: Thinkstock
