The Catholic Thing
HOME        ARCHIVES        IN THE NEWS        COMMENTARY        NOTABLE        DONATE
Are We in a Post-Gosnell Moment? Print E-mail
By Hadley Arkes   
Tuesday, 21 May 2013

Editor’s Note:
 We’re about one-third of the way to where we need to be in our fifth-anniversary fund drive this month. Many of you have been taking advantage of the offer of a free copy of the anthology of TCT columns for all donations of $100 or more. We really need many more donations at that level - and  higher - if TCT is to continue bringing you a daily dose of real Catholicism this year and in the years to come. Let me remind you that when you send your donation or make one on Paypal to include your mailing address. Books will be available in mid-June – more than 300 pages of your favorites writers at The Catholic Thing with a Foreword by our friend, Archbishop Chaput. We’re also inviting you all to the June 19 reception at the Catholic Information Center in Washington DC. Michael Novak, Hadley Arkes, Brad Miner, George Marlin, and several others among our regulars will be there for you to meet and talk with. But you must click on the notice on this page and register. Attendance for readers who register is free, otherwise there will be a small charge for food and drink at the door. Now it has come to our attention that Catholics best understand a different mode of giving, so please click on one of the collections baskets below to make your tax-deductible contribution of $50, $100, $1000 . . . or more. The kind of commentary you find here is as good as you’ll see anywhere. Show your support for the writers you’ve enjoyed and benefitted from over the past five years. Make your contribution to the work of The Catholic Thing today. – Robert Royal

 

At the time of my last column, we were awaiting the outcome of the Gosnell trial in Philadelphia. I was emitting a kind of cri de coeur over the conservative media and even pro-life Congressmen, who managed to erase from their memories the fact that we had actually enacted a federal statute that forbade the killing of a child who survived an abortion (the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act). 

But now the dramatic conviction of Kermit Gosnell has drawn the attention of the country with a focus intensely concentrated on the killing of a child late in pregnancy. More than that, this framing of the problem has drawn people, in the most natural way, to view the problem through the lens of the pro-lifers.   

In a panel on Fox News, Kirsten Powers, the designated liberal Democrat in the group, remarked on a friend of hers who was pro-choice – and yet shocked to learn that abortions could be performed throughout the entire length of the pregnancy.  

And yet, it was one of the driving purposes of the Born-Alive Act to impart that precise effect – to break out to the public news that even pro-choicers would find jolting.  That was the case that some us were making for that bill over twenty years ago. The media managed to block those effects by the simple device of refusing to cover the hearings and the vote on the Born-Alive Act in Congress.  

Now, ten years later, the Gosnell trial has broken through the barrier to make our point, and some of us could only wonder: Why did it take more than twenty years for the pro-lifers to wake up to the lessons – and the effects – that this simple move could impart? 

But have they woken up, even yet? Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal remarked that the Gosnell case brought a new “hinge-point” in the politics of abortion. But what will the pro-lifers do at this moment?  Answer: They will probably run true to form by engaging in dramatic acts of distraction.


           Hadley Arkes, third from the left, and others with President Bush at the
         signing of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act on August 5, 2002

And so the word comes in that Sen. Mike Lee, one of the rising young stars in the Senate, is shaping with his staff certain proposals to “investigate and correct abusive, unsanitary, and illegal practices”; to gather information about interstate referrals for “dangerous or illegal second and third trimester abortions”; and to conduct hearings on abortions performed at or near the point of vulnerability.  

There is a movement in the works to bring forth again the bill to bar abortions after twenty weeks. And it appears now that, in response to my own earnest appeals, staffers are at work to restore the penalties that had been stripped from the Born-Alive Act.  

But we also hear of a move to append a rider on abortion to a bill extending the debt-limit. Moves of that kind quickly expose the pro-lifers to the charge of making feckless gestures. Many of the other proposals open the pro-lifers to the charge of reaching too far, with arguments that take more unraveling. And almost all of them distract us from putting the focus now on the place that draws the close attention – and the sympathy of the public.

Years ago, when the courts were dealing with the bills on partial-birth abortion, the pro-lifers were twitted by Judge Richard Posner in Chicago. The law did not claim, he said, to protect the child in the womb. And so why would the State have any compelling interest in shifting that killing from the birth canal back to the uterus?   

He had a point, and that was the point that the Born-Alive Act sought to fill in: namely, that the law may indeed protect that child marked for abortion, when that child survived.  It would fall then to others to explain to us why we couldn’t protect that same child minutes earlier, before she emerged from her mother’s womb. 

And so we drew on the line attributed to Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans: “Boys, let’s elevate them guns a little lower.” Let’s make this simpler. Let’s put the key premises in place – and that will set the ground for any later moves.  

With that sense of things, the Born-Alive Act also gave us the chance to establish this key point: that if the Supreme Court could articulate a new constitutional right – a right to abortion – the legislative branch must be able to vindicate the same right on the same ground in the Constitution discovered by the Court, and in filling out that right, marking its limits.   

What should not be tenable is that the Court can articulate new rights – and then assign to itself a monopoly of legislative power in shaping those rights. What we sought to establish then was that the Congress may indeed legislate on this matter, and establish, as the first point, that whatever else Roe v. Wade meant, it could not have entailed a right to kill a baby who survived an abortion. 

My pitch: Let us put these key points in place with new hearings on the Born-Alive Act. Let us take evidence, before the country, as to how often this kind of killing takes place. Let us affirm the authority of Congress to reach this matter – and from that beachhead move outward to the further things we want to do.  

For the pro-lifers: Time to concentrate our minds. 


Hadley Arkes
is the Ney Professor of Jurisprudence at Amherst College. His most recent book is
Constitutional Illusions & Anchoring Truths: The Touchstone of the Natural Law. Volume II of his audio lectures from The Modern Scholar,
 
 
© 2013 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to:
 
 
The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Rules for Commenting

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments, which should reflect a sense of brevity and a spirit of Christian civility, and which, as discretion indicates, we reserve the right to publish or not. And, please, do not include links to other websites; we simply haven't time to check them all.

Comments (5)Add Comment
0
...
written by Michael PS, May 21, 2013
Perhaps, a good model would be the English Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which provided that "any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony..." It also provided that "evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be primâ facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive." In view of medical developments since the act was passed, this has now been reduced to twenty-four weeks.
0
...
written by Amy, May 21, 2013
Yes, continue to place the evidence before the public so that we know how often the killings take place; it is hard to willfully ignore or deny photographic evidence and documentation.

But we should caution ourselves against being too aghast at the filthy mess of the Gosnell-like slaughterhouses because if we magnify those obvious downsides of the bloody disgrace then the pro-aborts will find it easy to agree with us -- and clean it up. I, for one, and I hope I am not alone, do not think abortion should be a lovely, spa-like procedure. I do not want our lawmakers to decide that if we are going to have late-term/after birth abortions that it should be in anyway nice. Murder scenes are, in fact, messy.
0
...
written by Jack,CT, May 21, 2013
I totally agree Michael,if we just used the same common sense today as back then we would be far better off.
on the other hand,i find the comments left by Amy to be
offensive.To even hint that abortions should become a act
of suffering almost as if "Filth and Infection"is what you
get for murdering your child is simply cruel!
I am totally in agreement with the culture of "Life"
but we need not wish harm on anyone.
I as a retired educator in the inner city have seen girls
forced into a horrible situation........
we need not compound a horrible event.
0
...
written by Dennis, May 21, 2013
I have come to suspect that seeking legal remedies to abortion are a fool's errand. Forty years of legal wrangling, all to what effect? While we should not abandon the field, I do not see any prospect that the abortion industry can be unhorsed with laws or court decisions.
0
...
written by Dan Deeny, May 21, 2013
A good article. Sen. Lee and Sen. Cruz are leading an effort to investigate the abortion business.

Write comment
smaller | bigger

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 
CONTACT US FOR ADVERTISERS ABOUT US
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner