Mark Caserta: Abortion practices exceed Supreme Court ruling
What value does human life have in society today?
It's long been held by conservatives that the 1973 landmark decision in Roe v. Wade has been integral to the decline in the standard to which Americans adhere regarding life.
While the court's decision is now 40 years old, most people have never taken the time to actually read the ruling or a summary analysis for that matter. If they had they might discover the extent to which progressives have transcended the original intent of the court's adjudication.
In a 7-2 ruling, the court decided that a woman's right to privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a woman's right to an abortion. This "substantive due process" right permits a woman to terminate her pregnancy for any reason during the first trimester.
However, toward the end of the first trimester or nearing a point of viability, or the point where it is reasonable to assume the baby could survive outside the mother's womb, the state may regulate or prohibit abortions, unless it was necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
Now, the court's ruling gave some consideration for the viability of the baby. But thanks to progressivism, the life of the baby no longer plays a role in the minds of many when deciding to abort a child.
In fact, very often, and perhaps "most often," it's simply a matter of "inconvenience" and the dispassion for life driving the mother's decision rather than a life or health issue.
Research by The Guttmacher Institute shows that on average, women give the following reasons for choosing abortion:
About 75 percent of women say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities, or they simply cannot afford a child.
About 50 percent say they do not want to be a single parent.
Only 12 percent of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion.
One percent of aborting women reported they were victims of rape or incest.
As progressives "liberally" appropriate rationale for aborting a baby, the court's original intent has been woefully exceeded!
The most commonly leveraged premise is the baby is just a "mass" of tissue until taking the first breath. It's the epitome of hypocrisy that abortion advocates allude to the biblical "breath of life" that God breathed into Adam in pleading their case for calling a baby a "fetus"!
If progressives had their way, society would still be enduring partial-birth abortions and even live-birth abortions. By removing all preconceived notions of morality, liberals hope to remove all restrictions on ending the life of an unborn child.
Just how far would a liberal go in allowing abortion if they were "unfettered" in their agenda?
Would we see infanticide for babies born with disabilities? Would we see "selective" abortions if the child wasn't the "preferred" gender?
Most likely. You see, progressives simply have greater concerns than the life of an unborn child.
And millions have died as a result.
Mark Caserta is a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
The Herald-Dispatch welcomes your comments on this article, but please be civil. Avoid profanity, obscenity, personal attacks, accusations of criminal activity, name-calling or insults to the other posters. Herald-dispatch.com does not control or monitor comments as they are posted, but if you find a comment offensive or uncivil, hover your mouse over the comment and click the X that appears in the upper right of the comment. If you do not want your comment to post to your personal Facebook page, uncheck the box below the comment.