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.