“Early in life,” the architect Frank Lloyd Wright once said, “I had to choose between arrogance and hypocritical humility. I chose honest arrogance and have seen no occasion to change.”

Thirty-four years after the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, the architects of infanticide see no reason to disguise the stunning arrogance of their position, either.

Despite abundant scientific evidence that human life begins at conception … for all the graphic photography and testimonials exposing the cold cruelty of abortion procedures … even in the face of polls that show a clear majority of Americans are horrified by partial-birth procedures …

… they continue to build a legal house of cards that defies not only the gravity of the subject, but their own humanity.

In doing so, they’ve cracked the philosophical foundation of the rule of law: the presumption that every defendant is innocent, until proven guilty. Under Roe v. Wade, an unborn child may be effectively found guilty despite the child’s evident innocence. No contrary evidence is admitted in the case. Yet the mandatory sentence for every “convicted” child is death.

The perennial case for the prosecution was reiterated last November by the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court on the eve of its latest deliberations on the partial-birth issue. The brief offered three passionate justifications for the death sentence of abortion:

1. Outlawing partial-birth abortion would deny women access to the “best and safest health care,” and could have “serious adverse consequences.”

Of course, allowing an abortionist to do his work in the womb inevitably denies the “best and safest health care” to the unborn child – and ensures “serious adverse consequences.”

2. A federal law prohibiting partial-birth abortion “imposes one moral viewpoint on women, denying them personal dignity and equality.”

That “one moral viewpoint” is not, as might be presumed, some radical theocracy. It is, rather, the enduring idea that human life is intrinsically sacred – an endowment of our Creator, according to the Declaration of Independence.

And how, exactly, does killing an unborn child affirms one’s personal dignity? It certainly does nothing for the dignify of the child … and it is, prima facie, a violent denial of that unborn’s equal right to live and grow.

3. An anti-partial-birth abortion law would violate women’s “bodily integrity” … by denying them the right to an option they might choose for “deeply personal, moral, or religious reasons.”

Again, obviously, there is no violation of “bodily integrity” to compare with having your brains sucked out by a vacuum cleaner. Nor is there found on the books any law justifying homicide as long as it’s committed for “deeply personal, moral, or religious reasons.” (Hitler and the Aztecs had deeply personal and religious reasons, respectively, for slaughtering millions.) Continued...