The Value of Life

“Civilization,” or The Law and Government, exists to protect the innocent and the weak from the predatory evils of the powerful, who otherwise would operate with impunity under the dictates of a lawless, Darwinian Jungle where only the strong survive.

Hold that thought in mind as I relate to you the description of a “medical” procedure, called partial birth abortion, recently sustained as an outlawed practice by the Supreme Court on April 18, 2007.

As told by a nurse who witnessed the operation, here are the actions found to be “morally, medically and ethically inhumane.” --

“The doctor went in with forceps and grabbed the baby’s legs and pulled them down into the birth canal. Then he delivered the baby’s body and the arms, everything but the head. The doctor kept the head right inside the uterus…the baby’s little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby’s arms jerked out, like a startled reaction, like a flinch, like a baby does when he thinks he’s going to fall. The doctor opened the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby’s brains out. Now the baby went completely limp. The doctor cut the umbilical cord and delivered the placenta. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta and the instruments he had just used.”

Court statements regarding other examples told by abortionists, who were fighting this ruling, related how the head of the baby is often crushed to collapse the skull, or even pulled from the body, before removing the remains. One “doctor” confessed that he crushes the skull to ensure the fetus is dead before removing it. How gruesome is that?

President Bush- who signed the 2003 Federal Law that banned partial birth abortion- had this to say about the landmark ruling, “the supreme court’s decision is an affirmation of the progress we have made in the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life. We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.”

It was Bush’s Attorney General Gonzales who challenged the lower courts adverse ruling, and it was sustained, in part, by two of Bush’s appointees: Justices Alito and Roberts. Rounding out the majority was Bush Sr.’s appointee Thomas, and Reagan’s appointees: Scalia and Kennedy. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

Dissenting were Justices: Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg. Stevens was a Ford appointee and Souter, a moderate Bush Sr. appointee. Breyer and Ginsburg were appointed by Clinton. Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion calling the ruling “alarming.” Apparently, for this old ACLU lawyer, the horrors of infanticide is NOT as alarming as a sensible restriction on abortion.

As science moves the viability of fetuses further back during the pregnancy term, the rationale for abortion becomes less convincing. Roe v. Wade will take its place alongside the Dred Scott decision as one of the most abhorrent decisions in the history of our country. Just as the Supreme Court in 1854 ruled that all blacks were incapable of being regarded as American citizens with God-given rights, so the 1973 Roe v. Wade case made all unborn babies similarly “unprotected.” Don’t these helpless children have a choice? In the balance of rights, doesn’t the child’s right to life override the limited loss, (9 months), of the mother’s right to liberty? One is permanent, the other, only temporary.

Politics matters. Having presidents who will appoint justices who will honor the sacred purposes of law, government and civilization can save countless lives from the destructive butchery of an abortionist’s unflinching hand. President Bush said it best, when signing the ban into law, “today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child.” (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com

It’s Foreign Policy, not Foreign Pelosi

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.
The Executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States.”–U.S. Constitution

Under our Constitution, the President’s Executive Power includes the primary responsibility for maintaining the relations of the United States with foreign nations. With the Secretary of State, the President manages all official contacts with foreign governments. The President is also granted the power to negotiate treaties and make executive agreements with other nations and foreign powers.

What are the corresponding Constitutional Powers of the Speaker of the House? Generally, they are the presiding duties over the House of Representatives, the influence over a legislative agenda and a limited control over certain committee appointments.

So what is Speaker Nancy Pelosi doing? She has recently helped to pass a bill that would cut the number of troops in Iraq below a level that U.S. military leaders say they need. The bill, additionally, would require that combat operations cease before September 2008- setting an artificial timetable for withdrawal. In effect, the bill is tying-up war appropriations with “cut and run” demands that undermine our progress in the war. Fifteen of the eighteen Iraqi provinces are stabilized and Baghdad-since the Surge- is enjoying the most peace its had since the beginning of the war.

According to Vice President Cheney, “if we were to do what Speaker Pelosi is suggesting, all we will do is validate the al-Qaeda strategy of throwing in the towel and coming home. Then they win because we quit.”

Now Speaker Pelosi is in the Middle East getting ready to meet with Syria against President Bush’s wishes. Syria is recognized as an “Axis” state that has helped to sponsor terrorist attacks against us. They are trying to disrupt the Saniora government of Lebanon and are allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq. The Administration believes that a visit by Speaker Pelosi sends the wrong message at the wrong time. Syria is, after all, a sworn enemy of the new Iraqi government. Why would Pelosi think she has a role to play in America’s Foreign Policy?

Imagine if the tables were turned and someone like President Roosevelt was getting this sort of treatment from his Speaker of the House in the late 1930s. What do you think would be the response?

Well, we don’t have to wonder. It did happen. In 1938, Speaker William Bankhead, under pressure from the appeasers of his day, was considering a proposed resolution that would call for a public referendum vote as a preresquisite for a declaration of war. Here is Roosevelt’s response: “I must frankly state that I conclude that the proposed amendment would be impracticable in its application and incompatible with our representative form of government. Our government is conducted by the people through representatives of their choosing. It was with singular unanimity that the founders of the republic agreed upon such free and representative form of government as the only practical means of government by the people. Such an amendment to the Constitution would cripple any President in his conduct of our foreign relations, and it would encourage other nations to believe they could violate American rights with impunity.”

What is past, is indeed, prologue. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com)