15 June 2003
By
Fr. Michael Dolan
This week’s article: “Roe v. Wade, Part 4”
I used the words “contrived” and “arbitrary” in last week’s article, now see if you don’t agree. In the classic textbook on human obstetrics edited in 1971 by Hellman & Pritchard, the Court found the so-called “period of viability” they had been looking for. The citation selected indicated that at 28 weeks of development the fetus was widely considered to be viable, i.e., capable of survival outside the womb. Now remember, 28 weeks development didn’t confer personhood or constitutional protection on the fetus, as I pointed out before. Interestingly, it didn’t matter to the Court that the same paragraph, which defined “viability” to the Court’s satisfaction, went on to say, “Interpretations of the word ‘viability’ have varied between 20 weeks gestation and 28 weeks gestation,” and that expert neonatal care has provided survival of increasingly small infants. The Court had already rejected the concept of life beginning at the moment of conception because there existed “substantial problems for precise definition” of the term, yet they were willing to accept 28 weeks as a “precise definition” of viability when obviously it was not. Indeed, a report out of Boston published in 1973, the year Roe v Wade was rendered, showed that the survival of infants less than 28 weeks was 80 percent.
But unfortunately the child being capable of survival outside the womb does nothing for the developing child’s safety since the Court says, “If the state is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period except when it is necessary to preserve the life or the health of the mother.” Of course the definition of “health of the mother” is so vague and so all encompassing that it is a meaningless condition. It doesn’t matter whether late term, that is post viable, abortions are rare to the point of non-existence; the Court inarguably gave permission to take the life of a child in the mother’s womb anytime in the entire nine months of pregnancy. And so you can see why certain people are wary of conservative jurors being appointed to various benches. The Roe v Wade decision is anything but well thought out, and is in need of protection from reasonable opposition because it can’t possibly stand scrutiny.
Roe v Wade leaves me with many questions. Here are just two:
1. How can the Court, who gave permission to do so, sanction the abortion of a developing child, who possesses all the attributes necessary for survival outside the womb with all senses including pain well developed?
2. How can anybody vote for a political party—a previously great party, the Democratic Party—which has allowed protection of Roe v Wade, i.e., abortion-on-demand, as an integral part of its platform to be followed faithfully by its candidates?
May God bless you always,
Father Mike
Next week: Roe v. Wade—the last word…for now!