Why abortion should become illegal in the United States and why babies with severe fetal abnormalities should not be aborted

Some of the women who have had abortions after 20 weeks oppose the 20-week bans being proposed in Congress and in some of the state legislatures because these women felt that they needed to have an abortion after 20 weeks. However, not all of the women who choose to have abortions after 20 weeks choose to do so out of mere convenience to the mother, and the major reasons why women choose to have abortions after 20 weeks include severe fetal abnormalities, severe complications of pregnancy, changes in economic situations in the middle of a pregnancy, and pregnancies discovered after the first trimester. In addition, some of the abortions that are performed after 20 weeks involve pregnancies and aborted babies that were previously wanted by their mothers, and many of these abortions involve babies that were diagnosed with severe fetal abnormalities that could not be detected until after the 17th week of pregnancy.

Although it is understandable why some of the women who have had abortions after 20 weeks chose to have an abortion after 20 weeks and why some of these women would be opposed to a 20-week-ban on abortion, there are good reasons why abortion should become illegal in the United States. First and foremost, abortion by its very nature involves the killing of an unborn human being and always violates a right to life that should not have been taken away from unborn human beings. Second, a pregnant woman who decides to undergo an abortion is usually aware that an abortion will result in the death of an unborn human being. Third, the fact that a pregnancy will normally result in the birth of a child if it is not aborted is usually essential to a woman’s decision to undergo an abortion. Fourth, the majority of women who undergo abortions choose to do so with the intention of causing the death of their unborn child. Finally, the government has legitimate governmental interests that justify the prohibition of abortion.

While it is understandable that some of the women who are pregnant with an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality do not want their children to suffer from these defects and even though it is understandable why some of these women would want to abort an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality, the abortion of an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality cannot be morally justified because such an abortion is normally done with the intention of causing the death of the unborn child, because such an abortion is always inherently ordered by its very nature towards causing the death of the unborn child, and because such an abortion is always an intrinsically evil act that is always contrary to natural law and the law of God.

In addition to being morally wrong and morally unjustifiable, there are other major issues with the decision to abort an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality. First, there is the possibility that an healthy unborn child will be killed as a result of such an abortion. Second, such an abortion might involve the risk of serious complications to the mother. Third, the decision to abort an unborn child that is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality can still be emotionally painful for the mother. Fourth, an abortion might be very painful for an unborn child who is being aborted, but the natural death of an child who is born with a severe fetal abnormality is not always painful to the child. Fifth, any physical pain that might be felt in children who are born with a severe fetal abnormality might be able to be effectively managed through the use of painkillers. Furthermore, the choice to abort an unborn child who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality sends the message that the child is not unconditionally loved by his or her mother, even though the mother of such a child might believe that it is a compassionate or loving choice. Finally, the choice to have a baby who is diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality born alive sends the positive message that the child is unconditionally loved by his or her parents, despite a severe fetal abnormality.

While that there are some individuals who believe that abortion-on-demand should remain legal and that women should continue to have a right to an abortion, there are legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortion, and abortion should become illegal again in the United States. First and foremost, the government has “legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child,” and these legitimate interests have already been acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. Second, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting an unborn child who might be born alive as a result of a failed abortion against any irreversible harm that might result from such an attempt. Third, the government has a legitimate interest in protecting unborn children against any pain that might be experienced during an abortion procedure. Fourth, the legitimate governmental interests that justify prohibiting abortions that are not “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” are compelling enough to justify banning abortions that are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.” Furthermore, an unborn child already has a right to be protected against being killed illegally against the will of his or her mother under fetal homicide laws that exist in 38 states. Finally, unborn children should have a legally protected right to life that should never have been taken away from unborn children in the first place.

Advertisements

Mothers should not be held criminally liable for miscarriages and stillbirths under anti-feticide laws

Even though the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions should be reversed and abortion should be outlawed in the United States, a mother should not be held criminally liable simply because her child was miscarried or stillborn. In order to hold the mother criminally liable for the death of a baby who was not born alive, the prosecution should be required by law to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the death of the baby was caused by the voluntary commission of a criminal offense by the mother, that the criminal offense was committed with the knowledge that the conduct would result in the death of her unborn child, that the unborn child was not killed against the will of the mother, and that the death is not the result of a legal abortion.

The primary purpose of anti-feticide laws or fetal homicide laws is to hold an individual who causes the death of an unborn child through an act of violence against his or her mother responsible for the death of the unborn child in addition to the act of violence against his or her mother. Legal abortion procedures are currently excluded from the applicability of these anti-feticide laws, and most of the states that have these anti-feticide laws also currently exclude the death of an unborn child that is caused by the conduct of his or her mother. Although the United States Supreme Court had decided that unborn children do not have a constitutionally guaranteed right to life prior to birth in the Roe v. Wade case, an unborn child does have a legal right to be protected against being killed illegally against the will of his or her mother in some states under anti-feticide laws.

Purvi Patel was recently convicted under Indiana’s anti-feticide law as a result of the death of her unborn child. The majority of Americans do agree that a mother should not be arrested or subject to criminal prosecution simply because the pregnancy resulted in a miscarriage or stillbirth. Purvi Patel should not have been held criminally liable for the death of her child solely because of the death of her child, nor should she have been held criminally liable for her child’s death simply because she did not want to be pregnant. Law enforcement should have been required to establish probable cause showing that Purvi Patel had broken Indiana’s feticide law through evidence other than the dead body of her child prior to arresting her. In addition, Purvi Patel should not have been convicted under Indiana’s feticide law unless the criminal prosecution had actually proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she had actually violated Indiana’s anti-feticide law.

Although abortion, feticide, and infanticide should all be illegal, the law should protect the mother of a stillborn or miscarried baby from being arrested or criminally prosecuted solely on the basis of a pregnancy that ended in a natural miscarriage or in a stillbirth, even in cases where such a pregnancy was unplanned or unwanted by the mother. In addition, appropriate support should be given to women who have grieved the loss of an aborted, miscarried, or stillborn child, and those women who are in unplanned or unwanted pregnancies should be encouraged to have their babies and should be given the necessary support to do so.

Reasons why Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton should be reversed

Here are some of the reasons why the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions should be reversed, even if support for legalized abortion-on-demand still exists within the United States:

  • Unborn children are already human beings at the stage at which they are aborted, and as such do have a right to life that should never have been taken away from them, even when the unborn child is unwanted by his or her mother or the life or health of the mother is in danger.
  • Our founding fathers clearly intended for the right to life to extend to unborn children and clearly did not intend to limit the right to life to persons who have been born. This position can be found in James Wilson’s Lectures on Law and in William Blackstone’s Commentaries.
  • Many Americans, including both opponents of legal abortion and supporters of legal abortion, do believe that abortion does constitute the killing of an unborn human being.
  • Some abortionists, abortion clinic owners, and abortion clinic employees have openly admitted that abortion does kill an unborn human being.
  • Some of the justices of the United States Supreme Court have admitted that abortion constitutes the killing of an unborn human being in at least seven different cases involving the issue of abortion that were decided after Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
  • Human life begins at the moment of fertilization, and as a result human embryos and human fetuses are unborn human beings. Because human embryos and human fetuses are unborn human beings, they have a right to life that should be legally protected, even when they are unwanted by their own biological mothers.
  • There are fetal homicide laws in some states that allow persons who cause the death of an unborn child through an act of violence against his or her mother to be held criminally liable for the death of the unborn child as well as the act of violence against his or her mother, but these fetal homicide laws currently do not apply to the deaths of unborn children that result from legal abortions.
  • The right of an unborn child to be protected against being illegally killed against the will of his or her mother is already recognized under fetal homicide laws that exist in some states, and unborn children are already considered to be human beings for the purposes of these fetal homicide laws.
  • The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was the basis for the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, was never intended to preclude states from prohibiting abortion.
  • The United States Supreme Court never declared a constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion prior to the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions on January 22, 1973, and this decision was made 104 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified.
  • 20 states had abortion bans that were enacted prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution that remained into effect until abortion was legalized nationwide during all nine months of pregnancy on January 22, 1973 as the result of the Roe v. Wade decision. The 14th Amendment was never intended to affect the constitutionality of the laws prohibiting abortion that existed in these 20 states, even though these laws were determined to be unconstitutional under the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings.
  • The Roe v. Wade decision, along with its companion decision Doe v. Bolton, have effectively legalized abortion-on-demand for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy within the United States by including a “health of the mother” exception requirement in the Roe trimester framework and by including a broad definition of “health of the mother” in the Doe v. Bolton decision, even though at least four of the United States Supreme Court justices involved in these two decisions did not intend to legalize abortion-on-demand.
  • In the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, the United States Supreme Court has failed to explain how a ban on late-term abortions that are “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother” is unconstitutional when a ban on late-term abortions would be constitutionally permissible when the abortion is not “necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother”.
  • The majority of Americans believe that abortion-on-demand should not be legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy, even though the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions have effectively made abortion-on-demand legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy.
  • The vast majority of abortions are not performed for the preservation of the life or health of the mother and are performed for the purposes of getting rid of an unborn child who is unwanted by his or her mother.
  • Most pregnant women are not willing to have an abortion simply because the life or health of the mother would be in danger if the pregnancy is carried to term.
  • Dr. Alan Guttmacher, who was president of Planned Parenthood back in 1967 and who was a supporter of legalized abortion, admitted back then that “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.”
  • The United States Supreme Court had already decided in the Roe v. Wade case that “For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”
  • The government has various legitimate governmental interests that justify banning abortions of unborn children who are viable outside of the womb, including but not limited to protecting the right to life of unborn children, protecting unborn children against fetal pain that might arise as a result of a late-term abortion, deterring the commission of infanticide, and protecting unborn children against irreversible harm that might result if unborn children are born alive as a result of an attempted late-term abortion. These very same governmental interests even justify banning late-term abortions that are deemed necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
  • The inclusion of the requirement for an health of the mother exception in the Roe v. Wade ruling has led to the performance of medically unnecessary abortions and has resulted in actual harm to the health of women who have undergone abortions since the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions.
  • In the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, the United States Supreme Court has already decided that “the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting … the life of the fetus that may become a child.”
  • The United States Supreme Court did uphold a ban on partial-birth abortion through the intact dilation and extraction technique under the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 in the Gonzales v. Carhart case, even though this ban did not include a health exception.
  • Over 57 million unborn babies have been killed as a result of abortion since January 22, 1973, when the United States decided Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.
  • Norma McCorvey, the plaintiff in the Roe v. Wade case, is now pro-life and supports the reversal of the Roe v. Wade decision.
  • Sandra Cano, the plaintiff in the Doe v. Bolton case, was deprived of her due process rights in the Doe v. Bolton case because she was deprived of the opportunity to get her true story across before the United States Supreme Court.
  • The United States Supreme Court relied on false statements made by Sarah Weddington (the attorney who represented plaintiff Norma McCorvey in Roe v. Wade) and Margie Pitts Hames (the attorney who represented plaintiff Sandra Cano in Doe v. Bolton) in arriving at its final decision in both of these cases on January 22, 1973.
  • The principles of American justice were violated in both Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton because of the United States Supreme Court’s reliance of false statements in both of these cases and because of the violation of Sandra Cano’s due process rights in Doe v. Bolton.
  • The fact that the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings were arrived at in violation of the principles of American justice necessitate the reversal of both of these rulings, even if there is still support for a legal right to abortion in the United States.
  • Some women who have undergone an abortion will eventually regret their decision to have an abortion.
  • Many post-abortive women have suffered physical and emotional harm as a result of a previous abortion, and there have even been cases where women have died from the complications of an abortion.
  • Many of the issues that Sarah Weddington raised in the Roe v. Wade case could have been addressed without legalizing abortion on demand.
  • Women are able to abstain from sexual activity, and the laws prohibiting rape, statutory rape, incest, sexual activity between teachers and students, sexual activity between correctional officers and inmates, and prostitution are dependent on the ability to abstain from sexual activity.
  • Every unplanned pregnancy that is not the result of forcible rape could have been avoided if the pregnant woman had chosen to completely abstain from sexual activity.
  • Most of the abortions involve pregnancies that are the result of consensual sexual intercourse, and these pregnancies could have been avoided if the woman had chosen to completely abstain from sexual activity.
  • Most of the women who are seeking an abortion are only willing to have an abortion if abortion is legal and readily available.
  • The demand for both legal abortion and illegal abortion can be reduced by providing women who are in crisis pregnancies with the support needed to carry their pregnancies to term and by providing assistance where necessary to ensure that children who are born as a result of a crisis pregnancy are taken care of.
  • Despite the popular claim that women will resort to back-alley abortions if abortion is made illegal again, the majority of women who are in crisis pregnancies will not resort to illegal abortions if abortion is outlawed.
  • There is strong support for enacting bans on so-called sex-selective abortion, and the reversal of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton is needed in order to enact such a ban because such a ban is not currently constitutionally permissible in the United States as a result of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton rulings.