What Can Possibly Be More Important Than Saving Innocent Human Life?

The following is an article I submitted to the Rapid City Journal on Feb. 23, 2011 in rebuttal of their Feb. 22 editorial entitled “Don’t waste time on abortion bills.” I was told by Journal staff at that time there was a 2-week backlog on Forum page submissions but that it would be published “as soon as space allows.”  Now, more than 5 weeks later, I have decided to publish here an original, slightly longer than submitted (550 words are the maximum allowed for Forum page submissions) version of the article.

On Feb. 22 the Rapid City Journal editorial castigated the legislature for “wasting time” on bills designed to save innocent human life.

One of the reasons for this condemnation was a report claiming crisis pregnancy centers supposedly provide “false and misleading information about abortions.”

First you should know that the report referenced was commissioned by liberal Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) who has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood. Consider the source.

What did pregnancy centers supposedly lie to people about? According to the Waxman report, did they lie about the fact that the child inside the mother’s womb is not a part of the mother’s body but a distinct human being with its own genetic profile? Did they lie about the fact that an unborn child has a beating heart by the time it is six weeks old? Did they lie about the fact that research indicates the unborn child may be able to feel pain at eight weeks?

Waxman’s report alleged pregnancy centers have provided false and misleading information about the link between abortion and breast cancer, fertility problems after abortions, and mental health problems after abortions.

Pro-abortionists don’t want anything to come between a pregnant woman and an abortion, and dangers that would leave them trembling were they from cigarettes or prescription drugs don’t even phase them if they concern the holy liberal sacrament of abortion.

Waxman and others like him aren’t interested in hearing about the study published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons which found an abortion/breast cancer link which stood up against the statistical data of eight countries.

Waxman’s study also isn’t interested in the findings of the British Royal College of Psychiatrists in 2008 which recognizes the increased risk of mental breakdowns after an abortion, or other studies like the one at the University of Manitoba study which found essentially the same thing.

They also don’t want to know about the damage that can be done to the uterus, the cervix, and other reproductive parts during an abortion–damage that can affect a woman’s future fertility. Studies like those published in the medical journal Fertility and Sterility which found bone fragments from destroyed children left in the uterus, preventing future conception.

But even if abortion actually were perfectly healthy for the woman, pro-life people should just shut up and go away, right?

When slave states threatened to break up the new union of the United States over the issue of slavery, the northern states compromised with the Three-Fifths Clause to provide an incentive for slave states to free their slaves. When Southern states failed to do that, this should have been the end of the argument, right?

Instead, founders and early statesmen such as Benjamin Rush, John Jay and John Quincy Adams continued to fight to end slavery.

When the U.S. Supreme Court determined in the Dred Scott decision that a human being could be property, that should have ended the entire slavery debate, right?

Yet people continued on to fight on to end slavery, ultimately sacrificing half a million American lives to halt that barbaric practice.

Roe v. Wade “legalized” abortion in America by judicial fiat. Some argue that pro-lifers should respect the court and stop fighting for the lives of innocent children in the womb. South Dakota twice decided convenience was more important than human life, and pro-abortionists argue pro-lifers should shut up and let the slaughter continue.

Both the slavery issue and the abortion issue hinge on personhood: is the object in question property, or is it a person.

Should the abolitionists of the 19th Century have ignored their principles and thrown in the towel? I think the answer is clear, and it is the same answer for pro-lifers today.

The Journal claims there is “more important business” for our government to be about. But I can’t escape the question of what could possibly be more important than saving innocent human life.

As Thomas Jefferson said, “The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.”

Bob Ellis is a former supporter of abortion rights who, after investigating what science has discovered about life in the womb and what the Bible says about human life, became a strong defender of unborn human life for the past 15 years.

14 Responses to “What Can Possibly Be More Important Than Saving Innocent Human Life?”

  1. What can be more important? Protecting Constitutional rights, defending women’s bodily autonomy and equal citizenship, keeping government out of individual medical decisions…. If I need a liver transplant and your liver is compatible, I can ask and you can donate, but I cannot use the power of the state to force you to save my life by surrendering a portion of your liver.

  2. You don’t seem to care much for the most important of all rights–the right to live–of the child. Why so contemptuous toward innocent human life?

    No one seems to have a problem with making a guy wait to get a vasectomy or having him get permission from his wife? Why the same problem with making a woman wait 72 hours before killing her own child, or getting a second opinion at a place where there is no financial incentive to kill that child?

    You can ask a person to give their life for you, but it should be out of absolute necessity, not convenience, and if you take an innocent human life without their consent, that’s murder.

    There is no right more important than the right to life.

  3. Thomas Jefferson said, as you noted, that the first and only legitimate object of good government, is the care of human life. I take it that we both agree with that. But there is no institution that ‘cares for human life’ more than the healthcare system, so why shouldn’t the government take on that role if it is indeed the first and most legitimate function of our good government.

  4. That’s a good question. The first and probably most important reason is that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t authorize the federal government to run a health care system, a wealth redistribution system or charity system.

    But there are also very powerful practical reasons against it. Those of us who have lived under government health care systems (military, or in a foreign country) can attest that human nature ALWAYS kicks in on many fronts and makes such a system bloated, inefficient, and very expensive.

    One area where human nature kicks in is with health care providers themselves. In a government system, profit has little if any effect on the quality that goes into the system. It’s human nature to be motivated to work harder and provide better service if you know you’ll be rewarded for it. Conversely, if you know that you will receive the same payment regardless of whether you do the minimum required or give 150%, even the most altruistic person is likely to put out less effort than they would in a free market rewards-based system.

    Where human nature REALLY kicks in is among the patients. If you are getting something “free,” you are far more likely to use and abuse it. I’ve seen it in both the military health care system and the British health care system. You’re not paying for the service or the medicine, so why not trot on down to the doctor or ER for the slightest injury, pain or discomfort? And people do. In droves. Some will go out of their way just to receive goods or services they perceive to be “free.”

    This means you have an unfair distribution of goods and services because some citizens will discipline themselves and only use the system when necessary, while others use it at the drop of a hat. This means you have the responsible people of society working to turn over their tax dollars to pay for goods and services consumed by the lazy, those with unhealthy lifestyles, and those who abuse and over-use the system. Such a system is inherently unfair and un-American.

    This kind of abuse and over use puts tremendous strain on the entire health care system. Even with the deep pockets of the taxpayers, the politicians know you can only reach so deep into those pockets before the serfs squawk and there is political backlash. So even though government health care systems are exorbitantly spendy, the elected leaders close the purse strings at some point…but it’s hard to stop the abusing citizens from continuing to use the system. That means cuts–cuts in services, cuts in tests that can be run, reduction in quality all around, and so on. This is where the so-called “death panels” come in–deciding who gets what, because everyone can’t have everything.

    Nothing is perfect in this fallen world. But the free market, including free market health care, is the best thing that’s ever been devised. The reason the free market and capitalism work so well is because they take human nature into account, and utilize various elements of human nature to keep the other elements in check. And this also holds true in the health care realm.

    And as with anything (like we do with food, clothes and other charitable goods), philanthropy both big and small can help fill the gaps where some can’t afford the health care they genuinely need.

  5. I seriously appreciate the lengthy and thoughtful comments Bob, but let me give you some food for thought if I may on government healthcare in the U.S, which the largest and most expensive is Medicare.

    You firstly asserted that it is human nature not to put effort into your work if you are rewarded the same amount of money no matter what you do. That is true, but that it isn’t how Medicare works or pays. You must be thinking of a system that the private sector actually came up with called capitation where a provider is paid a lump sum to care care for a patient no matter what how much care you provide. But Medicare is fee for service where WE ARE paid varying amounts for what we do and the more efficient you are, the more you will be rewarded and the patient will be helped.

    Your other assertion is that people will trot on down to the doc anytime time they want and thus abuse the system. My 35 years dealing with Medicare patients revealed to me that people don’t do this at all. They show up when told, try and avoid the emergency rooms and don’t want to spend their lives in a doctors office or under an MRI scanner. I actually saw more people with private insurance wanting more things done because their employer was footing the premiums or they wanted to get their money’s worth if they were paying their own premiums.

    Most of the abuse I saw in the Medicare system came from the capitalistic private companies who learned to game the Medicare system and make huge profits at the governments and the public’s expense. I saw that everyday.

    And concerning ‘ death panels ‘ or rationing, the capitalistic insurance companies ration much more than Medicare. If people read their policies they would find that out. The private companies are quite slick in how they deny care. They will drop you at the drop of a hat whereas Medicare never drops a soul. The private companies are always on our talis to do less !

    The private companies must answer to their shareholders first and foremost and the patient comes behind that. The healthcare system is not like selling cars or toasters where competition drives cost down. Study after study has shown this.

    And lastly, you keep referring to the British system, but we are not Britain and our Medicare system is very different. People do still have to pay for what Medicare doesn’t cover so they DON’T want anymore done than needed.

    Just a quick, off the head, FYI

  6. Yes I understand that Medicare isn’t a fully socialized health care system. It is an intermediate system that liberals had hoped would bridge us to a fully socialized health care system for everyone long ago–but there are too many stubborn people like me who realize this is unconstitutional, and too many people who don’t want this forced on all Americans. We aren’t Euro-sheep, so we didn’t fall for it as easiliy as the Left had hoped.

    I mention the British NHS often because (a) I experienced it for several years, and (b) it is the “gold standard” of socialized health care systems–the one every card-carrying socialist dreams of having. As liberals in the U.S. repeatedly remind us of how we should be like Europe, this is the “Rolls Royce” of government health care systems they desperately long for. Medicare and ObamaCare are only stepping stones on the way to a fully socialized system.

    Medicare has a lot of the worst of both worlds: overuse, abuse by both doctors and patients, and underpaid reimbursements to doctors for their services, as well as gross inefficiencies. You should read Woodrow Wilcox’s articles published here frequently. He’s a Democrat, yet he freely admits what an error-prone system this is…and doesn’t want to see anything remotely like it forced on the rest of America.

    I can’t argue with your 35 years of experience because I didn’t share it. However, having spent 10 years under the military health care system and 3 years under the British health care system, I can attest first hand to repeatedly seeing people use the system for the most trivial of ailments. I am also told by Native American friends that the same old human nature kicks in with Indian Health Services that we provide to Native Americans according to treaty agreements. Human nature just doesn’t change, regardless of the passage of time, geography or ethnicity: make a free ride available, that free ride will be used as much as possible by many people.

    You’re right about the same kind of “death panel” mechanism at work in insurance companies. However, under a free market system, I can change health care providers if I don’t like the way I’m being treated under one. I can also appeal to that private health insurance apparatus–the one that is driven by profit motive which can be hurt by the negative publicity I can bring to bear by word of mouth if nothing else in telling others what a bad company this is. I can also appeal to my elected representative to bring pressure–legislative, if it comes to that–on the insurance bureaucracy to grant my petition.

    What do I have if the government is running the death panel? Having worked for the federal government for 10 years, I can tell you. You’ll have a panel of disinterested, disengaged, and dispassionate bureaucrats making the call and well insulated from the consequences of the calls they make. They will have the final say because they are the government. I can still appeal to my elected rep,but even he will be able to do little because the bureaucratic death panel will be well insulated by layers of bureaucracy that only the government can afford.

    In short, if I have a choice of taking my chances with a private panel that might be motivated by profit or human decency and where I may have other choices in a free market system, versus a distant, insulated government panel which is the first and last say on what I get…I’ll take the private system every time and twice on Thursdays.

    This, without even getting into the illegality of government health care systems under the U.S. Constitution…

  7. Can’t say I disagree with what you say. Enjoyed the conversation !!

  8. Me too!

    Bob Ellis/Dakota Voice
    -Sent from my Verizon Smartphone

  9. Me too!

    Bob Ellis/Dakota Voice
    -Sent from my Verizon Smartphone

  10. Where exactly in the United States Coonstitution does it guarantee the right of a parent to kill their uborn child?

    Wait a minute. It Doesn’t.

    You should have autonomy over Your body and equal citizenship, keeping the Feds and the States out of your medical decisions and you are right that you can’t use the power of the stae fo force me to save your life.

    But what does any of that have to do with Abortion?

    Abortion may be performed as a medical procedure but so were Dr. Mengela’s obscene ‘procedures’ on Jews, Slavs, Poles, and developmentaly disabled individuals. The fact that the baby has it’s own body with it’s own blood type, separate from his or her mother’s, and is only present inside of her body because of a Choice she made (obviously not choice if by rape), obviates all the rest of your examples as well. The baby is not an organ. He is not a ‘portion’ of your liver or any other part of your body. She has her own with her own organs.

    No. Abortion is a straight line moral and political judgement at this point protecting the disproportionate genocide of African Americans through this Holocaust and the convenience of Women AND Men who don’t feel they should bear the risk of pregnancy through enjoyable sexual activity. It also protects those among significant swaths of our Political and Judicial Elite cadre and their Power.

    They are Smart. They know if they protect the euphemistic ‘Choice’ of infanticide from people that have a functional Moral Compass they will not only retain power among the Influencers in our Media and Academic Culture but stand to actuall accrue more if they can keep those supporters blinded by their own Greed and mindlessly demanding the right to excise the ‘tumor’ growing in their or their girlfriend, wives, or daughters wombs.

    What can be more important indeed?

  11. The Appalling hardness of the Journal, and the Argus’s Journalistic Heart on this issue never fails to take my breath away.

    “More Important Business” is stopping this heartless business of Real Politik in it’s tracks. I often wonder about the lost generations in this Nation. Especially amonth our Black and Native American populations.

    Hey RCJ and Argus Editorial Staffs….Common Sense. Don’t leave home without it!

  12. Just a quick note from an impulsive proofreader:

    The phrase “don’t even phase them” should read “don’t even faze them.”

    People get those two words mixed up so often that the incorrect use of “phase” is on the verge of becoming officially correct.

  13. If you’d stop and think for even one superficial minute, you’d realize that women, or anyone for that matter, don’t have absolute autonomy over their bodies, so this argument is a major fallacy. You can’t legally take your own life, or decide to delete a limb, with or without a doctor’s assistance, without going to a funny farm for some major evaluation.

    The unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution are relatively few and mostly enumerated in the Constitution. The “rights” liberals incessantly claim are in this Documents are usually a fantasy. Otherwise, most of our laws would be impossible to pass.