Dear Mr. Sexton,
“I’ve always considered those who call themselves pro-life but then are willing to make exceptions in cases of incest or rape to be far more reprehensible that even the radical, though non-violent, pro-lifers who want to outlaw abortion in all cases.”
Partial agreement: I’ve always considered such individuals to be more reprehensible than those who are quite honest in their opinion that it’s OK to shred a baby limb from limb.
Perhaps your readers would like to know that rape and incest account for only less than 1 % of all abortions, even though they are such a common “exception” and such a common rallying cry for legalized abortion?Perhaps your readers would like to know that, “in 1979 Dr Sandra Mahkorn, a professional rape counselor, studied 37 women who had become pregnant through rape. (This was apparently all she could find. Pregnancy from rape is, in fact, extremely rare. The small numbers make the study less statistically significant. But we are certainly not going to hope for more rape victims just so we can get more reliable studies!) Of the 37, 4 did not complete the study. Of the remainder, 28 chose to continue their pregnancies, and 5 chose abortion. So of real pregnant rape victims, only 15% chose abortion.”
“When questioned, most of these women said that they saw abortion as another act of violence. One woman said that she “would suffer more mental anguish from taking the life of the unborn child than carrying the baby to term”.”
You note, “Roe v. Wade is the law of the land when it comes to keeping abortion legal”
The last time I checked, the United States Constitution was the “law of the land,” and the principles of “judicial review” and “penumbral shadow” upon which _Roe_ rests have never appeared in said Constitution. Rather, the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to life. No one in this country can be deprived of that right without due process. Now, the way that _Roe_ gets past this is by saying that Constitutional rights only apply to US citizens. Unborn babies are, by definition, non-citizens, so they do not get the protection of the Constitution. Talk about a disconnect! Liberals go around demanding mere *civil* rights, like free education or healthcare, to illegal immigrants, and then support _Roe_, which says that non-US citizens are not entitled to basic human rights!
Lastly, you prove the capstone of your ignorance of US law, history and political theory (much less basic ethics and morality) with the following:
“If it was overturned, every abortion in the country would be a crime.”
Hardly. It would only be a crime in those states with a law on the books outlawing abortion. Many states had legalized abortion before _Roe_ and would continue to do so if it were overturned.
But your article hits on what is perhaps the worst hypocrisy of the Republican Party. Many, like the late, great Robert P. Casey, have questioned how the GOP became the “pro-life” party, when the Democrats are the ones who supposedly stand up for the weak and defenseless.
Conservatives are supposed to be strict constructionists. For *any* Republican to say “I will not seek a change in _Roe v. Wade_,” to accept the idea that the Supreme Court can create law and overturn the legislator, or to even talk about honoring the Constitution in the context of supporting _Roe_, is a violation of the most fundamental principle of American conservatism.
I’d rather vote for someone who says, “I am pro-choice, but I oppose _Roe v. Wade_ because it is so clearly unconstitutional. This is an issue that should be left to the states.