|
|
 |
 |
|
--- Friday, April 20, 2007
Decision Births Impartial Reactions
Wednesday's Supreme Court ruling, which upheld a ban on partial-birth abortion, may end up being only a modest victory in curbing the cultural and legal acceptance of abortion. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion is a strained attempt to validate the law in question while making clear enough that the central tenets of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey remain essentially untouched.
Still, modest or not, it's a long-awaited step toward sanity. If the practice of abortion, in general, seems fairly indefensible to some of us, the partial-birth procedure is difficult to comprehend, let alone be held as a reasonable "choice" for a pregnant mother.
But to listen to the panicked voices of pro-abortion groups and liberal media outlets, the Carhart decision smashed Roe v. Wade into a thousand pieces. That may be a bit premature. It perhaps reveals, however, that partial-birth abortion became a symbol of broader abortion freedom, leaving this week's ruling to suggest that an outer perimeter of that freedom has now been breached.
The rhetoric certainly extends well beyond the limited scope of the majority opinion in Carhart. Planned Parenthood and NARAL even refer to the law as a "federal abortion ban." "Yesterday's ruling is devastating," claims the former. "The implications will truly hit home for women throughout the country."
And the New York Times: "[The majority opinion] severely eroded the constitutional respect and protection accorded to women and the personal decisions they make about pregnancy and childbirth."
Adds USA Today: "The Supreme Court reached deeply into women's lives and took away one medical option they have had to deal with such a wrenching decision."
And what is this medical option so crucial to the lives of American women? The syllabus for the Carhart case describes it this way:
The fetus is usually ripped apart as it is removed, and the doctor may take 10 to 15 passes to remove it in its entirety. The procedure that prompted the federal Act and various state statutes, including Nebraska's, is a variation of the standard D&E, and is herein referred to as "intact D&E." The main difference between the two procedures is that in intact D&E a doctor extracts the fetus intact or largely intact with only a few passes, pulling out its entire body instead of ripping it apart. In order to allow the head to pass through the cervix, the doctor typically pierces or crushes the skull. The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act will only apply to the latter, "intact" procedure. Somehow, prohibiting that practice -- which even the Washington Post calls "admittedly gruesome" -- is supposed to endanger women simply desiring to exercise their "choice."
This makes no sense at all, unless abortion is such a sacred and inviolable right that it cannot be restrained or hindered under any set of circumstances. Such a rigid standard would not only exceed the reach of legislative and judicial precedent, but it would render the unborn child valueless. If partial-birth abortion isn't appalling enough to be outlawed, then where can the line be drawn?
Perhaps the Supreme Court hasn't moved that line very far this week, but it's a start. A much needed one.
--- Monday, April 16, 2007
The Mystery of Evil
Evil is a frustrating and ugly mystery. It catches us off guard at the speed with which it can unleash the most unthinkable of torment and disaster. Scripture diagnoses the human heart as hopelessly wicked, but every generation hopes for the cure, hopes to prove the analysis wrong.
Then, like a robber in the night -- and sometimes literally so -- evil strikes. We are reminded again that mankind is comprised of fallen, wayward, destructive souls. No corner of the planet, and no corner of history, is free from the grasp of wickedness.
But why?
God sits sovereign and in command over every particle in the universe, yet it appears that the work of the enemy receives all the attention of television news. How can this be? The Lord does not hide from or ignore the reality of evil, but neither does He seem to provide the satisfactory reasons that it roams free to bring havoc to His creation.
At the same time, can we deny that each of us has rebelled against the hand of Him who made us? Evil does not make sense, but I often find it lodged in the recesses of my own heart.
Yet as much as evil is a mystery, how much more incomprehensible is the idea that God sent a Servant, a Sacrifice, a Son -- His own being -- to look wickedness in the eye and accept its consequences. For the sake of a defiant and broken people, He met death and evil on its home turf and declared victory.
If the mystery of evil generates fear and uncertainty, the mystery of Christ's defeat of evil demands our inexpressible gratitude.
--- Thursday, April 05, 2007
Shot Through the Heart
The Washington Post reports that some college students are not so sure they want to get the new vaccine for HPV -- but that doesn't mean they won't be having sex. Like many (most?) big media pieces on topics like this, the concept of moral boundaries is not even given passing mention. The words don't appear in this article, nor do terms like "abstinence," "chastity," "restraint, or "self-control." It's all about getting the right "information" and nothing to do with choosing the right behavior. The article concedes that facts won't necessarily interrupt the passions of the moment, but it seems to suggest that, given enough data, they might be at least set aside long enough to get a shot. But does any of that matter if we're no longer even willing to ask the questions of right and wrong? A recent editorial in Christianity Today makes a similar point: Given our culture's commitment to people's right to practice safe sex at any age, and our culture's assumption that human beings, like animals, are utterly subject to their passions, mandating this vaccine makes sense. But many are not pleased.
Some are troubled by the high cost of the vaccine, when arguably there are higher health priorities. Others note that Gardasil will not help the average cervical cancer patient, who contracts HPV in her 30s. The vaccine's effect wears off after 10 years. Still others feel the state is trying to become Big Nanny. ... And some of us are frustrated because this is just one more illustration of a continuing cultural fact: We have little interest in talking nationally about any consequence of premarital sex that cannot be neatly measured by the Centers for Disease Control.
Reports like this are sobering, not because of their warnings about a very serious disease, but because they abandon even the notion that there could be another way.
--- Monday, April 02, 2007
Poles' Opinions on Life
The debate over legalized abortion is reaching a fever pitch in Poland. The uproar comes on the heels of a woman's successful lawsuit -- in the European Court of Human Rights, no less -- upon not being able to end her pregnancy. Now, the basic questions about abortion are coming before the Polish government. And, according to this Time article, both sides seem to be recalling the bondage of communism in their defense. Ever since the fall of communism in 1989 abortion has been a divisive issue in the predominantly Roman Catholic country. Available freely under communism, abortion was often used as the only means of birth control. In the early 1990s, a right-wing government introduced one of the toughest abortion laws in Europe, allowing abortion only when the pregnancy poses a threat to a woman's life or health, results from rape or when the fetus is irreparably damaged. "It's paradoxical that under communism women had a choice and now under democracy, they don't," said Barbara Kowalik, a 38-year-old academic. "Now we have a tyranny of only one worldview." ... But Janina Sobota, a 60-year-old pensioner present at an anti-abortion rally, called the Tysiac case "a shame for Polish mothers." "A mother should protect her children, not to kill them," Sobota says. "There was no respect for life under communism," said Sobota, a mother of three. "Each time I was pregnant, the first words I heard from a doctor were: 'Pregnancy. Are we terminating?' We can't continue like that."
Funny that "choice" and communism are two concepts that are not generally considered partners. Such an argument seems a bit reminiscent of the Israelites who desired to return to slavery in Egypt for the perceived conveniences they left behind. But it does underscore how skewed one's perception can become when trying to make sense of unrestricted abortion. This looks to be an interesting case to follow, as an abortion debate in a society both close to strong multinational influences and far from Roe v. Wade.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
