Abotion and Justice

Yes, I know the title sounds like an oxymoron. But that's intentional.

That's because the whole state of American jurisprudence has become laughable with respect to a woman's right to choose.

Ditto the states of mind of pro-choicers.

Consider, for example, the recent case of that state prison inmate who the US Supreme Court ruled has the right to obtain an abortion at state expense, notwithstanding the state law that prohibits the use of public funds to facilitate an abortion. First, consider that the issue of abortion is supposed to be some sort of right to privacy or other, said to exist in the Constitution of the United States as of January 1973.

Well, assume for the sake of argument the right to privacy really does exist in the Constitution. How does a demand for state money to transport this inmate to the place the abortion will be performed fall under "privacy?" Not very private when you start involving the guards and -- indeed -- the taxpayers in one's quest for "privacy," now, is it?

Speaking of "rights" and "privacy," consider once again the status of this person who is demanding the right to privacy: she is an inmate in a state correctional facility.

You know, that's one of those places where they don't even let you close the door to go to the bathroom, since the toilet is in your cell, with the bars keeping you inside but open to view. Is that "privacy?"

Also: isn't prison the place where the guards do all those searches into the inmates' … uh … well, "body cavities?" Including the one that's supposed to be so "private" as asserted in this "right to choose?" How much privacy does an inmate get, now?

There are other issues at play, as well. Consider that, at whatever point the abortion takes place, what is eliminated would have become a human being, had not this "right" intervened in the development of this man or woman.

So an abortion produces a corpse. Period. End of statement.

One of two things will happen if there is no abortion, however: either there will be two corpses (mother and child) or no corpses (both survive). So what do we gain by an abortion?

Either we lose one life to save another or we lose one life to …

Well?

That's what I thought. And what is it that the Constitution says about being deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law? It's in the Fifth Amendment, just after the Fourth, where it talks about "unreasonable searches and seizures" (the presumed basis for Roe Vs. Wade in 1973).

But there is yet another issue involved in this particular case, quite apart from any privacy issues. Many of those opposed to abortion (myself included) do so on the basis of religious faith. For Christians and Jews -- as well as authentic Moslems (not the terrorist jihadist Islamofascists we are fighting in the war on terror) -- understand the 10 Commandments to be just that. They don't call 'em the 10 Suggestions.

And one of them is a forbiddance of killing. So, as we the faithful pay our taxes to the state of Missouri, we are now obliged by the federal courts to fund what we abhor and are commanded to avoid and forbear? And what the state of Missouri had no intention of making us do in the first place?

That clashes with our First Amendment right to the free exercise of our religion. You know: that's the part of the First Amendment they always hope you forget when they start talking about important the "separation of Church and State" is.

And it also clashes with the 10th Amendment, which delegates to the states or the people those powers not delegated to the federal government. And I will grant that anyone who ponies up funding for some activity should have a say in how it's spent. That's why I have no problem with federal funds coming with federal strings: don't take the money if you don't want the strings.

But since when does the federal government presume to tell the states how to spend the money they have raised on their own?

In short, there are a host of good legitimate Constitutional reasons why abortion should not be forced upon the American people.

It is therefore a mystery why abortion supporters are so … ardent … in their support of the thing. But ardent they are -- mainly in opposition to those judicial nominees of whose positions on this "right to choose" they are not sure:

* From People for the American Way, Nov. 1: "[Judge Samuel] Alito would have upheld a provision of Pennsylvania's restrictive anti-abortion law requiring a woman in certain circumstances to notify her husband before obtaining an abortion." Not a prohibition, just a notification. And not even all the time: just under certain circumstances.

Why is this a problem?

* From the NARAL Pro-Choice America website, yesterday: "In choosing Samuel Alito, President Bush has caved to the demands of his right wing. Alito's record indicates a clear willingness to continue dismantling our constitutional freedoms."

What freedom? To do something several parts of the Constitution forbid -- the Supreme Court notwithstanding?

I wonder where these guys would have been on the issue of slavery, since it was far more clearly spelled out "… and three-fifths of all other Persons" -- than is this "right to choose?"

* From Planned Parenthood on Halloween (!): "Judge Alito would undermine basic reproductive rights, and Planned Parenthood will oppose his confirmation. It is outrageous that President Bush would replace a moderate conservative like Justice O'Connor with a conservative hardliner."

"Moderate conservative?" Sorta like dry water or cold fire, -- or logical liberal, isn't it?

So what do we see in what might be deemed principled opposition (as opposed to "we-hate-whatever-Bush-likes"), to someone who favors any restrictions on abortion?

Simple: the position that a right that could be spelled out in the Constitution only with a Ouija Board trumps rights spelled out in the same document in so many words. And judges they support are the ones that have saddled us with this illogic that says one part of the Constitution carries more weight than several other part of the same document.

Can you think of a better reason to support judges these people oppose?

Gary Exelby is the editor of the Daily Statesman. E-mail him at gexelby@dailystatesman.com and visit his website at http://exelby.vnovus.com.