“Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

—American Convention on Human Rights (1969)

Some topics are worth re-visiting, so I’m writing again today about the right to life debate–something I covered April 6 of this year.

The topic of abortion never goes away, but it’s back in the headlines now for a couple of reasons.

Texas’s state legislature just passed a restrictive and seemingly imperfect law limiting abortion to only those pregnancies without a detectable fetal heartbeat, usually heard at about six weeks gestation.

The rationale: many medical and religious experts believe a heartbeat denotes a living human being. Opponents would argue for viability, which is at about twenty-four weeks gestation.

Perhaps the more controversial aspect of the law is that its enforcement is placed in the hands of citizens, not the state. Individuals can report physicians and clinics that violate the law, and receive a $10,000 reward if they prove their case. Sort of like bounty hunting, I guess.

Of course, the Department of Justice has sued to stop the law, even though there has been no case on which a suit could be based. Attorney General Garland, a former federal judge, certainly knows this, but is pushing ahead. The case is scheduled for October 1.

In a so-called “midnight ruling,” the U.S. Supreme Court voted not to stop the Texas law. The ruling could portend how they might rule on the case coming to them this fall from Mississippi.

That case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, will be brought before the Court by Mississippi’s Solicitor General Scott G. Stewart.

In a nuanced argument, he will state that, even if there is a right to abortion, there is nothing constitutional about tying it to the notion of fetal viability.

Furthermore, he will point out that in the nearly fifty years since Roe v. Wade, the issue of abortion has never been settled law, and the Court has heard, and will continue to hear, cases from states seeking to clarify their respective abortion laws.

Sadly, such a moral issue as “right to life” has become a political football. We’ve all seen and heard politicians raise abortion as a litmus test for nominees to the Supreme Court.

Court packing, pushing justices to retire in a particular president’s term, denying Senate hearings for a nominee, and rushing through appointments are all further evidence of attempts to politicize the Court.

Not all such maneuvers are about the issue of abortion, but Roe v. Wade is always lurking in the shadows.

Common sense would suggest it would be better for states to codify right to life laws, rather than have them continually come before the highest court in the land, with no hope for settled opinion.

After all, the founders designated what the national government should oversee, with everything else left to the states. It’s called federalism.

Even for those who are pro-choice, Roe v. Wade was a flawed decision. A half century of conflict over it is testimony to that. In a 1985 speech in North Carolina, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg–an icon for women’s rights–said perhaps the court went too far too quickly.

Food for thought, regarding another medical issue that’s also been politicized: Covid vaccine mandates.

Roe was based on the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. That is, the Constitution provides a woman the right to privacy regarding her right to choose.

Couldn’t that clause also grant protection to anti-vaxxers, should their legal objection to the vaccine mandate ever reach the Supreme Court? Wouldn’t they have the private right to choose?

And once they’re vindicated by the clause, could it apply to those opposed to vaccinating their children–even for preventable childhood infections? Beware the slippery slope!

Bottom line: abortion versus right to life is a moral issue. Each of us must decide for ourselves how we feel about it.

There are times abortion seems to be the lesser of two evils: rape, incest, a non-viable fetal medical condition.

Those circumstances, however, don’t explain the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed each year in just the U.S. alone.

As President Clinton said almost thirty years ago, “abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.” That seems like a good starting point for a respectful debate.

Finally, we get so caught up in a woman’s right to privacy, the right to choose, and legal mumbo jumbo, it’s easy to forget there’s another life we must consider.

In every case, there’s a human being in that womb. If we forget that, and don’t also consider that human’s right to life, we’re a lesser people for having done so.

Think about it.