
During the past several years, the news has been full of talk about abortion. Depending on which poll you read, a majority of citizens both favor and oppose abortion. The people who paid for these polls have attempted to identify all Americans into two camps--"pro-choice" or "pro-life". The polls have shown that the majority of Americans identify with neither of these extreme viewpoints. For instance, a majority of people feel that abortion should not be completely outlawed. Also, a majority of people feel that "abortion on demand" is wrong--that some limits to abortion are desirable.
It seems to me that the actions of the extremists are only prolonging our national agony over this important issue. In the past, the battles over abortion have been fought in the courts, by the parties most interested in these issues. Recent Supreme Court decisions have thrust the issue onto the Legislative Branch of the govenment, who are elected to represent the wishes of the majority. During a rally held in July 1989, our Congressman David Skaggs proclaimed that the time has come for the people to take a stand and be heard on this important issue.
In our society, the Legislature creates the laws, according to the desires of the majority. The courts provide for the rights of the minority to be protected according to Constitutional law. This issue is one of rights--the right to life, the right to choice. So what does the Constitution have to say about these important rights?
The Fifth Amendment declares that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The pro-life camp declares that a person is created at conception. The pro-choice camp declares that a person is created between the second or third trimester of gestation, or at birth. The majority of Americans are not so sure.
The Fourth Amendment states that "The rights of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." From these words, the courts have created the right to privacy by jucicial decision. The "right to choice" has been inferred by judicial decision from the right to privacy. The pro-choice people declare that their "abortion rights" give them the right to terminate pregnancy for any reason, without getting permission from anyone, and would even compel the state to pay for the procedure if they cannot afford it themselves. The pro-life people respond that the unborn child is a person, and that to abort that life is to commit murder. Again, the majority of Americans are not sure which position to believe.
Whether we see the unborn as a person or not is key to this contest of rights. The historical test of the unborn's "personhood" has been the "viability" test. This means that if the baby could survive outside of the womb (given the best medical care, of course), it would be considered a person, with a Constitutional right to life. The viability test, however, has almost outlived it's usefulness. With todays's technology, even embryos, frozen a few hours after conception, can be preserved for years, and emplanted in the womb with a one-in-ten chance of survival. A recent court decision indicated that the state has a reasonable interest in protecting the rights of embryos with even a ten percent chance of viability.
The right of a woman to be "secure in her person" does not normally give her the choice to take the life of another "person" without due process of law. However, the law will not condemn her for taking the life of another if that woman is acting in self defense against a clear and present danger to herself. We must recognize that abortion is a legitimate medical practice, not to be outlawed. But we must also recognize the reasonable interest of the state, which represents the people to protect the life of the unborn. Abortion should be made available only after "due process of law" has assured that the interests of the unborn are weighed against those of her mother.
To email me, use this address: