Yesterday, April 9, 2024, the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona handed down a landmark ruling affirming that an 1864 law banning abortion was enforceable given the 2022 Dobbs decision and its overturn of Roe v. Wade. The reaction to the decision was predictable. The Left gave vent to its anger and outrage — Arizona’s governor and Attorney General quickly announced they would defy the ruling and refuse to allow any prosecutions related to abortion. Meanwhile, “conservatives” on the Right clutched their pearls, clucked their tongues, and demurred in grave and subdued tones — “When we said we were pro-life, that’s not exactly what we meant. We don’t want to be perceived as radical or fundamentalist. We’d hate to endanger our polling among the Gestapo because of unnecessarily expansive protections for Jewish and minority rights.” When “conservative” and “Christian” leaders insist that they favor a 15-week abortion ban, not a complete ban on abortion except in cases where it may be necessary to save the life of the mother, we may credibly ask: Exactly what is “Christian” about this position, and what are they preserving besides their position and influence?
Doug Ducey, Arizona’s former, Republican Governor, said:
“I signed the 15-week law as Governor because it is thoughtful conservative policy, and an approach to this very sensitive issue that Arizonans can actually agree on. The ruling today is not the outcome I would have preferred, and I call on our elected leaders to heed the will of the people and address this issue with a policy that is workable and reflective of our electorate.”
Why 15 weeks? Why not 25 weeks, or 5 weeks? What is the basis for the restriction? Either this is simply an elective medical procedure or it is the termination of a human person without due process. If it is the former, there is no basis for any restriction on the option, if the latter, any permission is unconscionable.
What if we were talking about a law to kill a mentally retarded child in the first 15 weeks after birth? You could have the kid and take a four month test run before deciding whether it is worth the hassle of caring for a special needs child.
Change the context slightly but keep it focused on abortion en utero. What if we were talking about a law permitting abortion based on the child’s sex? Sex can sometimes be determined as early as 14 weeks, so parents would still have a week to decide if they really want another boy or will instead dismember and flush this one and try again for a girl.
Kari Lake, a Republican candidate for the US Senate, responded to the ruling:
“I am the only woman and mother in this race. I understand the fear and anxiety of pregnancy, and the joy of motherhood. I wholeheartedly agree with President Trump — this is a very personal issue that should be determined by each individual state and her people. I oppose today’s ruling, and I am calling on Katie Hobbs and the State Legislature to come up with an immediate common sense solution that Arizonans can support. Ultimately, Arizona voters will make the decision on the ballot come November.”
So each state should decide for themselves… and Arizona did, 160 years ago. But times have changed, and now we realize that we should be more flexible and permissive when it comes to laws about taking human life, so we need to decide again, and clearly our Republican candidate believes a decision to uphold a total ban on abortion is wrong. It’s not that we think abortion is murder, because that would be wrong at any time. We just think it should be illegal at certain times, and perfectly acceptable at others.
This is the difference between being pro-life and being (arbitrarily) anti-abortion in some, but not all, contexts. It is the difference between believing abortion is a moral question and believing it is a medical one. If the unborn child is a human person, then his life is sacred from conception until death. Either it is a human being or not; there is no third alternative. What is the difference between a 15-week fetus and a 16-week unborn child? Why do “conservative” leaders think it is acceptable to kill one but not the other?
The “conservative, pro-life” movement is deeply compromised and has been for a very long time. While we should welcome (and support) any reasonable restriction on abortion, the goal must be its complete abolition. Either the unborn baby is a human being or not. Either abortion is murder or not. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that it is murder at 16 weeks but only an elective, medical procedure at 14 weeks. You must decide whether your position relative to abortion is based on objective, moral convictions or relative and arbitrary compromises that can be negotiated for political expediency. If the fetus is a human child, then no elective option to terminate its life is morally permissible. –JME
You can read the AZ Supreme Court’s ruling HERE.
The above reactions from Doug Ducey and Kari Lake were taken from HERE.
