During production of Compelling Interest--our audio program on the topic of abortion--we asked people on the street a series of questions dealing with abortion.
One of those questions was: Do you know why abortion was illegal (in the United States) prior to Roe v Wade? To our
surprise, no one we asked gave us the correct answer! Of all the people we interviewed, regardless of where they stood
on abortion, there was not one person who knew the answer.
The majority of respondents concluded that
it had something to do with unsafe abortion practices in the 19th century (which is when anti-abortion laws began
to come on the books). They assumed the laws were created by people who desired to protect pregnant women from unsafe abortion
procedures prior to the introduction of anti-septic surgical practices and without the aid of modern technology. If it sounds
logical, it certainly is. And if it sounds familiar it’s because that’s exactly what Sarah Weddington argued in
Roe v Wade.
She claimed that the anti-abortion laws
that came on the books in the 19th century—eventually spreading
to every state and Federal Territory in the Union—had nothing to do with “protection of fetal life” or any
kind of statement about “when human life begins;” but instead had everything to do with protecting women.
Unfortunately, Weddington’s opposition
had not done their homework and her erroneous assertion went unchallenged.
So what was the real reason? Exactly the
reason she claimed was not the real reason: protection of fetal life. This fact becomes crystal clear by a simple reading
of Roe v. Wade itself! In what might actually contend for the title “Mother of all ironies,” pro-choice
Justice Harry Blackmun, the architect of the Roe decision, seems to have known more about why the original U.S. anti-abortion
laws came into existence than anyone in the courtroom.
Here are Blackmun’s own words taken
from the Roe opinion:
THE ANTI ABORTION MOOD PREVALENT IN THIS COUNTRY IN THE
LATE 19TH CENTURY WAS SHARED BY THE MEDICAL PROFESSION. INDEED,THE ATTITUDE OF THE PROFESSION MAY HAVE PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT
ROLE IN THE ENACTMENT OF STRINGENT CRIMINAL ABORTION LEGISLATION DURING THE PERIOD. AN AMA COMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL
ABORTION WAS APPOINTED IN MAY 1857. IT PRESENTED ITS REPORT TO THE TWELFTH ANNUAL MEETING.
THAT REPORT OBSERVED THAT THE COMMITTEE HAD BEEN APPOINTED TO INVESTIGATE CRIMINAL ABORTION "WITH A VIEW TO ITS GENERAL
SUPPRESSION." IT DEPLORED ABORTION AND ITS FREQUENCY AND IT LISTED THREE CAUSES
OF "THIS GENERAL DEMORALIZATION":
"THE FIRST OF THESE CAUSES IS A WIDE-SPREAD POPULAR IGNORANCE OF THE TRUE CHARACTER OF THE CRIME-- A BELIEF, EVEN AMONG MOTHERS THEMSELVES, THAT THE FOETUS IS NOT ALIVE TILL AFTER THE PERIOD OF QUICKENING.
"THE SECOND OF THE AGENTS
ALLUDED TO IS THE FACT THAT THE PROFESSION THEMSELVES ARE FREQUENTLY SUPPOSED CARELESS OF FOETAL LIFE . . . .
"THE THIRD REASON OF THE FRIGHTFUL EXTENT OF THIS CRIME IS FOUND
IN THE GRAVE DEFECTS OF OUR LAWS, BOTH COMMON AND STATUTE, AS REGARDS THE INDEPENDENT AND ACTUAL
EXISTENCE OF THE CHILD BEFORE BIRTH, AS A LIVING BEING. THESE ERRORS, WHICH ARE
SUFFICIENT IN MOST INSTANCES TO PREVENT CONVICTION, ARE BASED, AND
ONLY BASED, UPON MISTAKEN AND EXPLODED MEDICAL DOGMAS. WITH STRANGE INCONSISTENCY,
THE LAW FULLY ACKNOWLEDGES THE FOETUS IN UTERO AND ITS INHERENT RIGHTS, FOR CIVIL PURPOSES; WHILE PERSONALLY AND AS CRIMINALLY
AFFECTED, IT FAILS TO RECOGNIZE IT, AND TO ITS LIFE AS YET DENIES ALL PROTECTION."
THE COMMITTEE THEN OFFERED,
AND THE ASSOCIATION ADOPTED, RESOLUTIONS PROTESTING "AGAINST SUCH UNWARRANTABLE DESTRUCTION OF HUMAN LIFE," CALLING
UPON STATE LEGISLATURES TO REVISE THEIR ABORTION LAWS, AND REQUESTING THE COOPERATION OF STATE MEDICAL SOCIETIES "IN PRESSING
THE SUBJECT."
Although he would eventually rule
in favor of legalized abortion, Blackmun makes it very clear in this part of the Roe decision, through his quotations
of the American Medical Association, that the anti-abortion laws that began appearing in the 1800’s were created primarily
because of pressure put on state legislators by members of the American Medical Association. Those members increasingly became
convinced of severe deficiencies in common laws with regard to the lack of fetal protection prior to “quickening.”
(Quickening is the moment in pregnancy when the mother first feels fetal movement). After all, despite modern attempts to
repaint history, abortion was already illegal (under common law as well as under some state laws) after quickening
and was considered a misdemeanor, in some locations, prior to quickening.
So why did doctors suddenly become concerned about protecting
fetal life prior to quickening in the mid-1800's? Blackmun fails to offer an explanation for the phenomenon of a host of anti-abortion
laws coming on the books during the same general post-civil-war time frame. Instead he simply states the bare facts (bold
mine):
IN 1871 A LONG AND VIVID REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE COMMITTEE
ON CRIMINAL ABORTION. IT ENDED WITH THE OBSERVATION, "WE HAD TO DEAL WITH HUMAN LIFE. IN A MATTER OF LESS IMPORTANCE
WE COULD ENTERTAIN NO COMPROMISE. AN HONEST JUDGE ON THE BENCH WOULD CALL THINGS
BY THEIR PROPER NAMES. WE COULD DO NO LESS."
IT PROFFERED RESOLUTIONS, ADOPTEDBY THE ASSOCIATION, RECOMMENDING, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT IT "BE UNLAWFUL AND UNPROFESSIONAL
FOR ANY PHYSICIAN TO INDUCE ABORTION OR PREMATURE LABOR, WITHOUT THE CONCURRENT OPINION OF AT LEAST ONE RESPECTABLE CONSULTING
PHYSICIAN, AND THEN ALWAYS WITH A VIEW TO THE SAFETY OF THE CHILD-- IF THAT BE POSSIBLE," AND CALLING "THE ATTENTION
OF THE CLERGY OF ALL DENOMINATIONS TO THE PERVERTED VIEWS OF MORALITY ENTERTAINED BY A LARGE CLASS OF FEMALES-- AYE, AND MEN
ALSO, ON THIS IMPORTANT QUESTION."
So here again, pro-choice Justice Harry
Blackmun fully acknowledges and documents the pro-life intent of the original U.S. anti-abortion laws of the 1800’s.
Rather than providing an explanation for the phenomenon, however, he simply quotes selections from the committee’s reports.
The fact is doctors were becoming increasingly
aware that human life is indeed human and living long before quickening. They were also becoming aware of an increasing number
of induced abortions as a consequence of liberal pre-quickening laws and even liberal interpretations of what constitutes
a post-quickening abortion. In short, knowledge of inadequate laws and conscience came together to form a “Physicians
crusade against abortion” culminating in the passage of strict anti-abortion laws in eventually every state.
Completely contrary to Weddington’s
assertion in Roe v Wade, these laws were created specifically to protect unborn humans from a barbaric violation of
their God-given and inalienable right to continue living.
This is just one example of the faulty--if
not intentionally deceptive--logic used in Roe v Wade to "justify" legalization of abortion in the United States.
We discuss this and much more in our new audio release in partnership with Oasis Audio, Compelling Interest: Life After Roe v Wade.
