It is now four weeks post release of the Dobbs decision by SCOTUS on June 24. Incidentally, that day was a Catholic Holy Day for the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and it was the same day that my book “Building a Culture of Life” was first available in print. What an interesting and exceptionally busy four weeks this has been!
The decision by SCOTUS was explained in lengthy, detailed, and erudite fashion, basing the findings upon solid legal grounds and precedents, citing also the original meanings of the amendments to the constitution, observing that the findings of SCOTUS in 1973 were not based upon the same considerations and therefore were in error, and noting that the court in 1973 totally ignored without explanation why the 10th amendment (giving authority to the states) did not apply in Roe v. Wade.
Some people have attributed to the court in 1973 a “decision looking for a justification.” In present day, leadership in the highest positions in US government, as well as activists with a vested interest in preserving liberalized access to abortion, complain that this court is “off the rails,” as well as offering a plethora of other disparaging remarks, with some also advocating violence against the justices. Hate speech has been plentiful and has stimulated attacks against churches, pregnancy resource centers, cemeteries, and even religious bookstores, with spray painting, broken glass, additional vandalism inside churches, theft and damage to religious objects, and setting fires. Some PRC workers have been assaulted, and at least one person was slightly injured by a gunshot wound.
What has not happened is also important to those with reason. No legal scholar has found a flaw in any of the citations and conclusions by the justices in the Dobbs decision, unlike the decision in Roe which puzzled legal scholars immediately and has been a topic of discussion for decades.
Let us look at what Pope Francis has said in an interview about the Dobbs decision. On July 4, he compared seeking an abortion to “hiring a hit man.” Mother Teresa once commented to someone (I am paraphrasing) that if it is legal for you to kill a baby, then what is there to keep me from killing you. To that I add my personal observation that we have a society that denigrates life and promotes at the highest levels of government support for taking the life of an unborn child, so why should we be surprised when people kill each other on the streets, and why should we be concerned when someone kills children in a school. Is it not because we do not respect life in all its stages and conditions that we do not respect life in any of its stages and conditions.
Whereas we now celebrate the SCOTUS decision that returns the regulation of abortion to be debated by the people in their communities and enforced by their elected representatives through a democratic process, the pro-abortion faction howls at having their cherished income streams (and political power bases) reduced. At the same time, the war is not won; indeed, the next battle is just being joined. The prize we now fight for is in the hearts and minds of the people. It is a matter of hate and violence versus love, mercy, and peace.
The ultimate pro-life goal is for most people to realize that the tiniest human life is a person in development. We all start very, very tiny and develop bigger and bigger, becoming more complex in our abilities until we can live without the protection of the womb. But, even then we are not ready for prime time. We continue to develop, becoming an infant, a toddler, a child, an adult, then middle-aged, and ultimately elderly. Life is a continuum of changes in our body. We might look the same from one day to another, but over a few years, the changes are quite evident. So, it it is a biological truth proclaimed by medical science that the smallest human entity is a person in development from the moment of conception, a process that continues through all of the stages of life. However, that does not make that entity legally a “person” under law.
Since being a person under law provides entitlement to protection of life under the US constitution, some argue the question concerning at what point does the growing human entity become a person entitled to protection of life, thus the point at which abortion would be illegal. Some assert that it is at such times in development that a baby can live outside the mother, but that is different in every pregnancy. Many people do not want to even consider the question because its answer could mean that abortion at any stage is killing a person. So, the growing baby is declared not be a person, basically just “because I say so.” [For a more in-depth discussion of the process by which philosophers have tried to link personhood with ensoulment, please see the relevant chapter in my book.]
If a baby is a person at the time of natural birth, how about a few hours before birth when a baby is delivered by C-section…surely the baby is a person then. Well, how about a week earlier? Then, how about at 20 weeks? Some babies have survived as early as age 15 weeks, so they must have been a person then.
They were helpless and dependent on their mothers at age 14 weeks, and 12 weeks, and 6 weeks, and at 4 weeks…. but they grew until they reached an age when they could live outside the mother and be a person, so they must have been a person during the entire growth period. People may not like it, they may not want to think about it or discuss it, but it is logically true and the culmination of two thousand years of philosophy and medical science. Some things are just true whether one believes it or not. The battle is to convince more and more people that incipient human life in its tiniest condition is a person, thus entitled to having its life nourished and protected.
When I look at the work before us, I find myself inspired by a quotation from Pope St. John Paul II, “Never tire of firmly speaking out in defense of life from its conception and do not be deterred from the commitment to defend the dignity of every human person with courageous determination.” That is my plan.