No More Lies About Abortion

Now that Justice Alito has been confirmed to the Supreme Court, there’s a real possibility that Roe v. Wade may be overturned. But I’m not that obsessed with overturning Roe v. Wade or with passing a constitutional amendment banning abortion. What I believe is most important is that women get the truth and nothing but. And the truth about abortion is finally beginning to be heard across the country.I was unable to attend the March for Life in Washington, D.C., last week, but my pastor at Immaculate Conception on Staten Island, Father Peter Byrne, told me the annual rally was different this year from previous events. Instead of appearing on a platform on the Great Mall, speakers this time were heard from the steps of the Capitol. In addition, the majority of marchers were young – students from colleges and high schools – and despite the rainy weather, their enthusiasm was contagious and the smell of victory was in the air. And all this happened a week before the Democrats’ attempt to filibuster Mr. Alito’s nomination was decisively defeated on the Senate floor.It was somewhat ironic to hear Senate Democrats demanding strict constitutional responses from the nominee on the issue of abortion. Senator Schumer asked him if the Constitution protected freedom of speech. After Mr. Alito responded in the affirmative, Senator Schumer then asked, “Then why can’t you answer the question: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion in the same way?”Mr. Alito responded that freedom of speech is explicitly protected in the language of the Constitution. But the right to an abortion depends on the interpretation of certain provisions in the Constitution. Senator Schumer obviously did not care for this response, but it was correct.If held to strict constitutional standards, which is what the Democrats insist they want, then Roe v. Wade is definitely in jeopardy. In 1973, an activist Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment protected a right to privacy. Here’s the section of this amendment at issue: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.It seems to me that if the Court could twist these words to mean the right to privacy between a woman and her doctor, then they mean we have the right to do anything we want in private. This is patently absurd. Since 1973, this ruling has led to the death of around 46 million unborn Americans, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Is it any wonder why Social Security is threatened by a diminished future workforce?But beyond the Supreme Court, there are signs that the tide is turning toward opponents of abortion around the country. If Roe is overturned, then the abortion issue goes back to the states, where tough new anti-abortion laws are already being drafted. Legislators in Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, South Dakota, and Tennessee are proposing an outright ban on all abortions, except when the woman’s life is in danger. Ultimately, the blue states will still permit abortion, and New York will remain the abortion capital of the nation.Unfortunately, as a political issue, abortion has been rife with lies since 1973, when Bernard Nathanson, one of the co-founders of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, and others deliberately falsified the number of women dying from abortions. Nathanson, who now opposes abortion, admits that NARAL’s number of 5,000-10,000 deaths annually from illegal abortions before Roe was completely invented. But according to the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control, the actual number of abortion deaths in 1972, before Roe was decided, was 65 – and 24 of those resulted from legal abortions. Lies, all lies. Norma Mc-Corvey, also known as “Jane Roe,” was not pregnant as a result of rape, as her original lawsuit claimed. In fact, she never had an abortion. She now describes herself as “100% pro-life.”In July, Indiana passed an informed consent law requiring abortion providers to tell pregnant women about the availability of fetal ultrasound imaging and auscultation of fetal heart sounds. If requested, these services must be provided before a woman terminates her pregnancy. In most cases, a woman who sees and hears their unborn child decides either to keep their child or put it up for adoption. This groundbreaking legislation is being proposed in other states as well, and the goal of making abortion rare is now a real possibility. All those young people in Washington, D.C., are the children of pro-lifers. They are the new generation that recognizes the truth about an issue that still deceives many adults.

No More Lies About Abortion

No More Lies About Abortion

More from the New York Sun

‘Paranormal Activity’ Is a Killer Theatrical Experience

The Return of the ‘Debasement Trade’

Who’s Afraid of Josh Shapiro?

House Democrats Add Three Pro-Israel Lawmakers to Foreign Affairs Panel, Including Atop Middle East Subcommittee

Israel Is Condemned for Closing an UNRWA School at Jerusalem

Dolly Parton’s Gifts in Song and Storytelling Arose From an Upbringing Steeped in the Ethic of Self-Reliance

Matic Makes the Home Robot a Reality

A Riveting Film on John Boorman’s Doomed ‘Exorcist’ Sequel Shows the Devil Is in the Details

More from the New York Sun

‘Paranormal Activity’ Is a Killer Theatrical Experience

The Return of the ‘Debasement Trade’

Who’s Afraid of Josh Shapiro?

House Democrats Add Three Pro-Israel Lawmakers to Foreign Affairs Panel, Including Atop Middle East Subcommittee

Israel Is Condemned for Closing an UNRWA School at Jerusalem

Dolly Parton’s Gifts in Song and Storytelling Arose From an Upbringing Steeped in the Ethic of Self-Reliance

Matic Makes the Home Robot a Reality

A Riveting Film on John Boorman’s Doomed ‘Exorcist’ Sequel Shows the Devil Is in the Details