Financial assistance

Rebuttal obscures realities of abortion – The Citizen

I am very grateful to Mr. Jack Bernard for his rebuttal of one of my letters on abortion. Although he resorted to dirty tricks on me and many US Supreme Court justices being “right-wing extremists” and “very religious Catholics,” his arguments were heartfelt and relatively well-reasoned.

But, as is always the case with abortion, I believe it is Mr. Bernard who has blinkers on this issue, as clearly revealed by his numerous factual errors, his misunderstanding of the role of the SCOTUS, and his unfounded accusations on the motivations of those of us who are pro-life/anti-abortion.

And, most glaringly, Mr. Bernard has completely ignored the real issue at hand, which is the reality of abortion as the intentional killing of pre-born human life.

To start with the factual errors, although Mr. Bernard claims that in 1973 abortion “was illegal in a minority of states”, the fact is that it was only legal in four states: Alaska, Washington, New York and Hawaii. Thirteen other states had recently expanded their exceptions, but to say it was illegal in only a “minority” of status is patently false. (I used his own resources to confirm this, by the way).

He also accuses the Trump SCOTUS nominees of lying about supporting the idea of ​​”stare decisis” as it relates to Roe. They did no such thing. They simply said that Roe had the status of precedent, like any decision made by the Court, but that does not preclude overriding such precedent, and no candidate would ever clearly state how they would decide a hypothetical case. This would prevent them from being objective and examining each case on its merits.

Moreover, we have a very rich history of precedents that have been ill-decided, such as those relating to slavery and civil rights. Thank goodness it is not our tradition or practice to make precedents absolute.

But even more important is Mr. Bernard’s assertion that the 1973 Roe decision was “exactly the kind of compromise supported by the majority of American citizens” as it declared that “a pregnancy should not be terminated if the fetus is viable”.

First, it is not the Court’s job to understand what the majority of citizens think about an issue and apply it to a case before them. This is the role of the legislator, not the judiciary. One of the tasks of the SCOTUS is to determine whether a given law is constitutional or not, regardless of its substance or intent.

They must not put the cart before the horse and decide a case based on political preference on the paramount issue of the law’s constitutionality, which is exactly what the justices did with Roe and why it had to be struck down. .

Nor is it the Court’s job to define when an abortion can and cannot take place. This is also a role for the legislature, although I would argue that no government institution should claim the right to decide when life is “viable” since all human life should be protected at all stages of development.

Mr. Bernard also fails to mention that Planned Parenthood’s 1993 decision against Casey effectively eliminated the viability requirement by saying that an abortion could be performed at any time to protect the “well-being” of the mother, which which is an extremely vague requirement. which was used to allow abortion up to the point of birth.

The Dobbs decision actually gives states the right to allow abortion at any time for any reason, if they so choose, and places like New York and California unfortunately do. Most states will probably find the kind of compromise that Mr. Bernard deems so desirable in setting limits on [when] abortion can take place.

But that brings us to the real point of this whole debate, which is abortion itself.

Either the zygote, embryo or fetus is human life or it is not. No sane person would argue that this is not human life, so let’s assume that from the moment of conception there is real human life in the womb.

Some say it’s okay to destroy this life until the end of the first trimester for such and such a reason, but whichever line you choose is arbitrary, especially since the science of biology prenatal has improved and has shown us that fetuses can feel pain. as early as 12 weeks, and at least heart rate or activity begins at 6 weeks.

So the line from which abortion should be allowed keeps getting pushed back, but in the end, it’s an illegitimate line that shouldn’t be drawn at all. All human life is precious and should be preserved, and spared the absolutely horrific process of abortion, where the child (as Biden called it) is either dismembered, poisoned or stabbed in the head.

I challenge Mr. Bernard to watch a video about what really happens during an abortion and keep making his innocuous comments about it being acceptable to a majority. The majority can be wrong and wrong about some things, especially when pro-choice forces control the media and have indoctrinated our people on this issue.

There are many other things in his argument that I could refute or criticize, but let me end with Mr. Bernard’s assertion that “conservatives like Trey will claim ‘we don’t see the many’ more children on welfare” that will result from the overthrow of Roe, and that we ignore the “plight of these families” and blame “the mothers for their situation.

It is telling that he does not provide a source for this most fallacious claim, which is often made by abortion advocates without any evidence and with a huge dose of cynicism and falsehood.

I challenge Mr. Bernard to visit the website of a place like the Pregnancy Support Clinic and see the services they provide for pregnant women, from health care to adoption services to actual financial aid. They also offer advice to women who have had an abortion because the reality of the act is such that the women who practice it are deeply hurt and damaged by the practice.

It goes without saying that those of us on the pro-life side care very much about mothers and their children, and that in addition to funding and working for organizations that help these women, we are completely pro-life. public assistance to these women.

Conversely, Planned Parenthood and many abortion advocates advise abortion first and foremost and care little for women once the procedure is complete. They don’t want to hear about the pain and suffering, both physical and mental, that women experience as a result of this horrific and dehumanizing practice, let alone consider the implications of killing an unborn child.

In conclusion, I would simply ask the Mr. Bernards of the world to clarify the facts, to understand the role of SCOTUS and our various branches of government, to recognize the brutality that is the abortion procedure, the harm it does to women and the very clear fact that pro-lifers are the ones who really care about mothers and their children, both in word and deed.

If they can do that, maybe we can have an honest debate, but given the foundation of lies that underlies the abortion movement, I highly doubt that will ever happen.

Trey Hoffman

Peachtree City, Ga.