By Ed Zielinski
Abortion advocates have been trying to convince the American people since the 1960s that first, abortion is a woman's “right” and second, abortion fits naturally into the rights associated with living in the United States.
Like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, abortion advocacy laws just don't fit into the legal system very easily.
When Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton were force-fitted into our society by the Supreme Court, the majority of that court, eaten up with their perceived authority to legislate from the bench, thought that their action would incorporate the abominable practice of killing children into the fabric of our society. The concept of abortion on demand just does not fit into what we as a society view ourselves to be.
Since biblical times, this murderous abomination has been condemned. The consequence of introducing the practice of killing children into any society has produced disastrous results. In the United States abortion has already caused medical, psychological, societal and economic damages across the entire spectrum of the nation's population.
As the proponents of abortion worked hard to introduce legislation consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court they kept bumping into some insurmountable obstacles — the Judeo Christian ethics of this nation, the Anglo Saxon principals of the common law and common sense, to name a few.
Anyone that studies the purposes of rules and laws will tell you that they are established to promote and protect the common good. When laws are written to support abortion they just don't do that.
Two glaring examples of this “failure to fit” phenomenon are the laws that are on the books to protect children from abuse and the statutes that prohibit murder.
Everyone agrees that the unlawful killing of a human being is murder. Everyone would further agree that soliciting, aiding, abetting or consenting to the unlawful killing of a human being is as wrong as murder.
Or would they?
The news is currently plastered with a running commentary on whether a person in California should be prosecuted for multiple murders in the death of his wife and child.
Murder in California and many other states is defined as “the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.”
The pro-aborts got a provision added to the definition of murder in California to permit abortion. In order for abortion not to be considered in this definition there is a big if.
The definition of murder does not apply if “the act (killing) was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the mother of the fetus.”
The reason the pro-aborts do not want you to closely examine these laws is that you will discover that within them lies the ultimate result of their failure to fit in.
Doesn't it seem strange that the language commonly used to identify a party co-defendant in a murder is turned around to make abortion legal in California?
When you examine the wording of these pro-abortion-law paragraphs you discover that they give more reasons for criminally pursuing abortionists and their supporters. For instance, in California, because of the exception to murder language, a child or woman who did not consent to the abortion performed on her can seek an indictment for the murder of her child.
The comparisons of these abortion advocacy laws across the United States could fill many pages. Suffice it to say they just don't make sense when examined in light of the principals that govern society, things like a desire to protect the defenseless against harm.
Now then, look at the laws that are supposed to protect children from being abused: in every state sexual involvement with a child that is legally incapable of consenting to sex is a crime. The crime is considered child abuse. In each state there are persons required by statute to report what they suspect to be the abuse of a child.
The pro-aborts do not want the suspected sexual abuse of children below the age of consent reported.
Once again, using California for example, they got a provision in the mandatory child abuse reporting statute to suit them. This provision of the law that requires reporting of suspected abuse by physicians tries to exempt abortionists by including this paragraph:
“…For the purposes of this article, “reasonable suspicion” means that it is objectively reasonable for a person to entertain a suspicion, based upon facts that could cause a reasonable person in a like position, drawing, when appropriate, on his or her training and experience, to suspect child abuse or neglect. For the purpose of this article, the pregnancy of a minor does not, in and of itself, constitute a basis for a reasonable suspicion of sexual abuse.”
Even with this language in the statute, the pro-abortion California Attorney General recently rendered an opinion interpreting this law as still requiring the reporting of suspected sexual abuse by physicians, which includes abortion providers.
Regardless of how hard they try, the pro-aborts cannot make these “pro-abortion” provisions fit or make sense to the real people in our society.
As we work together to expose the common hypocrisy of these laws and force them to be reviewed, these laws will be resolved and removed in favor of the innocent child in the womb.
(Ed Zielinski serves as General Counsel for Life Dynamics, a pro-life organization engaged in exposing the abortion industry.)
