The Last Crusade
January 24, 2012 § Leave a comment
Taking leave of discussions on the impending nuclear war between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich over Florida this week, there’s a more important war waging right now. In usual fashion, the elite media are happily ignoring that thousands of protestors of all faiths and stripes have gathered today in DC for the annual March for Life. Their willful ignorance of the fact would be historically scandalous if not already precedented by that of the German media whilst Hitler’s regime systematically shipped millions of its own citizens to the slaughterhouses a mere generation ago.
That we as a people have stood silently by while a sixth of our population has been summarily executed since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 is a tragedy which pales in comparison the combined genocides in Germany, the Soviet Union, Rwanda and Cambodia. The cold, lucid point was made today in arguably one of the best legal briefs I’ve read on the vacuousness of both the Roe and Doe decisions. If you’re inclined to legalese and constitutional treatise like I am, it is one of the more important reads for understanding how these decisions have entirely undermined both our respect for human life and for the constitutional integrity of our justice system.
Of all the smart analyses, one key word stuck out: commit. As with any political debate, this fight is one of public relations and rhetoric. Paulsen’s turn of phrase, to “commit abortion”, puts a finely-sharpened point on the spear of the pro-life movement’s campaign to win the war over the soul of America.
The utter passivity of the terms ‘getting an abortion’ or even ‘having an abortion’ are immediately flushed when we put the procedure in its proper violent context: the act of abortion is the deliberate and calculated ending of a human life and it is, thusly, something that is ‘committed’. Furthermore, those former terms emphasize the person receiving the heinous services of the abortuary. The latter term emphasizes, quite rightly, the human being on the receiving end of the deal. What’s more, it puts the ball in the court of the abortifacient Left and begs the question how in the course of sane reasoning anyone can come to clearly point out which moment (nay, even day) during its gestation the ‘fetus’ takes on the properties of humanness, an instant before which it did not possess.
With the Catholic Church in America leading the charge, joined by Americans from all corridors of faith, the war to end, finally, this American genocide is closer than at any time since Roe. Public opinion polls routinely show that when voters are presented with an even-handed question about life versus abortion, they overwhelmingly choose life. That multiple state legislatures in recent years have begun to file and even pass landmark pro-life bills that launch direct challenges to the Roe precedent is equally encouraging. One of them is a ballot measure in Oklahoma to push back against the Supreme Court by amending the state’s constitution with a legal definition of ‘personhood’ at conception. Others include the recent ‘fetal pain’ bill in Idaho; Michigan’s partial-birth abortion ban; and the aggressive bill to mandate a 24-hour waiting period before an abortion in Texas. Dozens of similar bills have been filed by legislatures around the country.
These skirmishes at the state level are arguably more critical to the war for life than is the battle for the White House. At its end, whether the next president is inclined to appoint pro-Roe Supreme Court justices, the battle to defend the gains in recent years may ultimately be fought on the field of the Tenth Amendment, not the Fourth. Recapturing the Constitution and states’ power to determine for themselves matters of criminal and equity jurisprudence is that final battlefield for the war. Given the Court’s lack of temerity in recent decades, it is highly unlikely that the supremes will wade into the waters that pose whether they should upend Roe, which would surely send shockwaves across the nation eclipsing the roiling effects of the 2000 Florida election debacle. More likely is that the Court will simply choose a path of least resistance and remand a decision to the powers of a particular state’s supreme court. And in so doing, it will set a new precedent whose lines are drawn along state borders.
That is precisely why these various bills in the various states are so critical. When push comes to shove, these bills – when passed – will act as the rearguard when the house of Roe comes crashing down. While pro-life bills in the Congress are all too important, the battles waged at the state level have quickly become the last crusade.