Friday, March 03, 2006

Reflecting on South Dakota

Reflections of South Dakota

South Dakota stands ready to move the assault on the legal case for abortion to the heart of the issue. All we await is the Governor’s signature. The legislature passed the measure last week that would prohibit abortion except in the rare case that the mother’s life was in immediate danger. The bill is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down the laws of the states and federalized the issue by declaring that the woman had a constitutional right to kill her baby. Since then this country has witnessed the deaths of over 46 million children.

South Dakota is not the only state to be considering such a ban. Mississippi is also looking at such a law.

Some people in the pro-life movement question the wisdom of this strategy. Last year there were successful efforts to have the South Dakota measure quashed. This year those groups have been silent having borne the brunt of scathing criticism by the grass roots. It would be the height of stupidity for anyone to suggest that this effort be vetoed by the governor. It would also betray the cause and suggest that we do not have the ability to win.

The pro-life movement is changing. It is growing and it is young. The new blood is excited about making a difference and can feel the momentum. Those who have been veterans of the wars and battles need to encourage their involvement and offer the expertise and wisdom that comes from those engagements. But we must not fall prey to the failures of the past. We must not let personal and partisan differences affect the goal. That goal is to restore legal protection to the unborn children. That goal is to stop the rapid decline in care and respect for our elderly.

The movement has got to remain flexible and adaptable to the changing forces in our culture as we keep our eyes on the goal. The use of the Internet has changed not just the way people get the news but how the news is now distributed.

The continuing erosion of the Democratic Party and the stranglehold the extreme Left has on its apparatus will either destroy it or leave it permanently impaired. The whole influx of new American immigrants and the values they hold will impact the nation. The international scene and the influence of America in importing ideas and values mean that everything we do her not only affects us but the world as well.

So we must rally around those means to get out the message that the “Culture of Life” ethic offers hope, healing and health to all persons. It is the only real means for young people to find true happiness. We must be the element in society that explains that killing the children will destroy our future.

This is why South Dakota represents an opportunity to educate the public on what Roe really said and why after 33 years we do know when life begins and yes it begins at conception. Tell the public the truth. Every human life starts as a single cell. Every human life has value. Laws must protect every person no matter how small. Protecting life is a good thing. Killing moms and babies is a bad thing. Or as my friend Janet Folger once said, “Live baby good, dead baby bad.”

South Dakota represents the people speaking through their legislature. It is the democratic process at work challenging the legal monopolists who have choked the will of the people for the last 33 years. The people never asked for legal abortion. It was shoved down our throats by a bunch of elitist population control extremists and racists who wanted to socially engineer our nation. Over the last 33 years they have managed to really “screw” things up to use a word from the streets. Well the American people are tired of being used and abused. This is an opportunity to reclaim the soul of America.

Protecting women. Protecting children. Protecting the future of America. Bringing hope to the world. Common sense. About time.


At 12:14 AM, Anonymous John K. Walker said...

Although the timing of this action (led by the President of South Dakota Right to Life, who is also a member of the state legislature) strikes me as arrogantly reckless, especially as it was conducted directly against the advice of James Bopp, the National Right to Life Committee's own chief counsel (once again demonstrating a dyfunctional organizational relationship), I personally am not as alarmist about the potential downside as I was at first. This premature action, of course, jeopardizes the constitutional strategy the national organization has been pursuing for years (at least since the Casey fiasco in 1992), but the deft way that Chief Justice Roberts has already engineered unanimous decisions in the Ayotte and RICO cases convinces me that he won't allow the South Dakota law to even be granted review ("a writ of certiari," requiring the votes of 4 Justices) unless there actually is a new majority consensus by then against the ludicrous "reasoning" found in Roe/Doe/Casey on the court. (As Mr. Jakubczyk correctly declares, Blackmun was used as a stooge/frontman by Douglas and Brennan, as their own internal memos -- leaked to Bob Woodward in THE BRETHREN -- and their posthumously released papers prove.) There emphatically is no such pro-life edge right now, even if Roberts and Alito don't turn out to be reincarnations of O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter (as, indeed, they probably will not), contrary to the quotes of some of the arithmetically challenged South Dakota supporters of this move.

So if Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and/or Kennedy have not been replaced by at least one new appointee of Bush or another pro-life President by then, the South Dakota law (or any similar ones) will probably just die on the vine, without setting the movement back by decades again as the Casey decision (on Pennsylvania's law that did not even prohibit any abortions) unquestionably did.


Post a Comment

<< Home