Last week, there were two stories about carnage - the tragedy at Virginia
Tech and the Supreme Court's decision on partial-birth abortion.
At Virginia Tech, 32 people were killed. The worst of the pictures were kept
from us, but we saw enough, as bleeding students and faculty members were
carried out of the buildings. There were no pictures released of what some
witnesses described as blood and gore on the floors and walls of the
classrooms where Seung-Hui Cho performed his evil deeds. No dead bodies were
shown.
Also, by a narrow 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality
of a federal law prohibiting partial-birth abortion, a procedure in which a
mostly delivered and fully developed baby has its brains vacuumed out. The
Court reached its decision even though the law lacks a "health" exception,
which has been a legal loophole large enough to drive any abortion through
and which has fueled abortionists who claim that the pregnant woman's mental
or some other "health" is in danger, thus "justifying" the abortion.
While pro-lifers welcomed the decision (it is the first to prohibit an
abortion procedure since Roe vs. Wade in 1973), the language used by
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion is inconsistent.
In the past, Kennedy has voted to uphold Roe vs. Wade and has opposed other
attempts to restrict abortion, but his opinion in the partial-birth case may
open the door to further regulations on abortion Š or not. What Kennedy
wrote illustrates that the Court is not yet ready to overturn Roe: "Where it
has a rational basis to act, and it does not impose an undue burden, the
State may use its regulatory power to bar certain procedures and substitute
others, all in furtherance of its legitimate interests in regulating the
medical profession in order to promote respect for life, including the life
of the unborn."
Kennedy seems to be saying that if abortionists can use means to kill a baby
other than by partial birth, it's OK with him. And what's this about
promoting "respect for life, including the life of the unborn"? Abortion on
demand has produced precisely the opposite of Kennedy's stated objective. It
has eroded respect for life to the extent that madmen shoot up schools and
street thugs kill for pleasure.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists called the Court's
decision "shameful and incomprehensible." What is shameful is the systematic
and legal destruction of more than 46 million babies in the United States
since 1973, according to the pro-choice Alan Guttmacher Institute. What is
incomprehensible is a society that would allow for the destruction of a
generation, depriving the nation of talent and unknown contributions.