Written by Linda S Brooks
Contrary to what some might think, the plain language utilized in law with an emphasis on purpose rarely deviates from the logic of the religious anymore than it does from that of the non-religious; and when it does, manipulation is what is being pursued. As stated in the Economist article “Religious Abortions (Nov. 18, 2023) the author starts out quoting the Bible . . . “if a pregnant woman is hit and suffers a miscarriage, the perpetrator must pay a fine. If she dies, however, the penalty is death. The tale is said to differentiate between the value of a fetus and a person.” Indeed, when one stands before a Court, the question of whether the accused is religious or not it rarely becomes a legal determinant unless the case is addressing an exemption from military duty not because of ones religious belief, but because of the danger that the protestor would pose amongst his fellow soldiers: its a very pragmatic conclusion that recognizes that cohesion amongst the society of soldiers in the battlefield, where life and death is present, is a necessity. Likewise, the battle field where the contention between pro abortion and anti abortion, now continuing at the State level, the right of the unborn is not always recognized just as the other soldiers that a protestor would endanger. If one wants a religious comment that does recognize the right of the unborn one can read, for instance, in Jeremiah 1: 4-5 “The word of the Lord came to me saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’” Outside of the religious, the fact is that Pro-life advocates recognize the Constitutional rights of the fetus as already a living being; whereas, the pro-abortion advocates do not until they breath their first breath after birth.
So the challenge in the debate begins with bridging that gap comparing oranges against oranges or apples against apples, but never oranges against apples; law has to find a common base for comparison in order to formulate a decision. In the US, that choice begins with the well-being of the mother, with the greater ability to survive, unless her well being is threatened; in which case she has the choice to yield to the chance of the survival of the child she is carrying. Accordingly, the indication is that doctors have historically chosen the mother and by no means does the government reserve a right to that decision. Conversely, though the mother has the right of choice, it is the Catholic’s claim that the child was chosen to be born by the sole fact that they were conceived and, therefore, cannot be denied. Regardless of either case, one’s religion is not what is being questioned; we are speaking of a Court of Law not of a church; it’s the law that is being tested regarding its Constitutional application. According to the National Library of Medicine (Spring 2010) citing the 14th Amendment, the Constitution does recognize the yet unborn only regarding citizenship and the rights stated in the 14th Amendment.
At this point in time in the US, abortion is now a State’s Rights issue which means that the consensus of the people of each state controls law-making where law does not conflict with existing law; be that either State or Federal. Since the Federal level has yielded the decision on abortion to States Rights, the people of each state can make this decision on abortion either for or against and they are perfectly within their rights to do so; irregardless of ones belief system but with the desire to uphold the intent of the writers of the US Constitution. Furthermore, the State not only has the duty to uphold existing law but also they are an advocate for society, in general, as well as for those who are encapable of protecting themselves. In other words, according to The Religious Restoration Act SEC. 2 (5) “the competing interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religions liberty and competing prior governmental interests.” Thus, Fetus Homicide is being upheld in this country as justiciable and so are the States exercising a right to prohibit abortion; other than that, those wanting an abortion will just simply have to do a little traveling and the number of Abortion Clinics may be fewer but maybe the facility will be bigger. Each State will determine this outcome.
All Rights Reserved.
Politics and Other Anomalies by Linda S Brooks. politicsandotheranomaliesbylindasbrooks.com A Fla. LLC FEIN 88-2001600.