RIGHT TO ABORTION

The 'right' to abortion
July 19, 1999

U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne in Richmond, Va., struck down the state's ban on what have become known as "partial birth" abortions.

In doing so, last Friday, the judge explained that the law imposed "an undue burden on the right to an abortion."

I don't know Judge Payne personally. But I don't think it's necessary to know much about him to conclude that this is an evil man, with either no respect for the law or no knowledge of it.

For starters, there is no "right to an abortion." Now don't tell me about Roe vs. Wade. No serious legal scholar believes it is a court case based on precedent and the limitations of the Supreme Court in a constitutional republic. It was, as any intelligent observer understands, a super-legislative effort by an activist and out-of-control court to impose its elitist will upon the people.

I'd like to hear Payne define the word "right." In the American tradition, rights descend not from government edict or judicial ruling. They spring from a much higher authority. They are inalienable. They cannot be abrogated by government, even through the will of the people. They transcend temporal political considerations. They are universal. Some of these rights, though not all, are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. But one thing is certain: There can be no right to take the life of another innocent person -- not even by a mother, a doctor or a judge. Such a right would be in stark contrast to other enumerated and well-established rights.

Earlier, on June 25, 1998, Payne blocked Virginia's new partial-birth abortion law from taking effect, claiming the language in the bill was "imprecise." His decision was overruled five days later. But notice the pattern here. This judge is determined to overturn this law by any means necessary. He's grasping at any legal excuse or rationalization to throw out the legislative action. The real reason? He doesn't like it. And he is one of those judges who believes his powers are virtually limitless. He no doubt sees himself in a godlike role -- way above the fray of responsibility and accountability to ordinary people or the U.S. Constitution.

Let's be clear about exactly what partial-birth abortions are. I could give you my definition. But given that this is a publication designed for the whole family and because I know many people read this column over breakfast, let me provide you with the definition offered by the adamantly pro-abortion Washington Post: "A third-trimester procedure in which the fetus is pulled out of the birth canal feet first and the skull is partially collapsed so it can be brought through the cervix, the narrowest part of the birth canal."

It must be pointed out for the sake of accuracy and full disclosure that this "procedure" can and often takes place days or even hours before a fully term baby, not fetus, would normally be delivered.

The decision by Payne, who, as you can see is appropriately named, immediately clears all legal obstacles to this barbaric practice in the state of Virginia, where the people, through the legislative process, have already made clear they consider it an abomination.

Yet, the law as it stood prior to Payne's judicial capriciousness was relatively toothless. Those convicted of carrying out this hideous crime were not sentenced to death. They were unlikely even to be jailed. It was a misdemeanor under the Virginia law to crush a fully developed baby's skull, carrying the unlikely possibility of one year in prison and a $2,500 fine.

Payne attacked the law as a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and then had the audacity to criticize the wording of the Virginia statute as vague. I wonder if Payne has actually read the 14th Amendment. If he has, I'd be curious to know where he finds any mention of, allusion to, or hint about partial-birth abortion or the termination of babies' lives in any way, shape or form.

But this is not a decision of concern only to Virginians. This is part of a national trend by judicial tyrants like Payne. Virginia is one of 28 states that have attempted to ban the procedure, but in 20 of those states, the laws have been blocked or severely limited by courts.

Only Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Utah have laws restricting this hideous procedure in effect. Congress passed bans on the procedure in 1995 and again in 1997, but President Clinton vetoed both.

Do we live in a land governed by the people? Or have we become a nation that will tolerate -- even celebrate -- any evil justified by a handful of arrogant ruling elitists?

Nobody has the power to create new rights except God. Let me tell you, I know God. And Clinton and Payne are no gods.