Shownotes Transcript
With the overturn of Roe v. Wade and the implementation of the Dobbs Decision, each state will now have the authority to create new laws protecting innocent human life.
But there are some dangers, and we must consider well how these laws are to be presented. Most importantly, we must realize that every abortion has two victims: obviously the child, but the mother herself is a victim of the act of abortion.
As discussed and examined in depth in my book: “Evil Twins: Roe and Doe - How the Supreme Court Unleashed Medical Killing,” it is very clear that the Supreme Court instructed that in all states, it was only to be doctors who were to make the decision of performing an abortion, that women were not given this authority, but could only ask. All authority for the abortion decision was given entirely to the doctor alone
It is critical as pro-lifers look at which new laws to put into place, that women not be viewed in the way that the radical feminist movement has portrayed them, i.e. as agents of ‘choice’ but instead, the law must recognize it is the perpetrator of the abortion, the abortionist, who, in performing an abortion, has one goal - the ending of a human life. The indirect object of the abortion procedure is in fact a pregnant woman. Her ‘participation’ is necessary. But Roe v. Wade itself is clear she is not given any moral agency or authority. Years later, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underscored with vigor that irony.
Roe versus Wade and its progeny was very clear the woman did not have authority - she was free to have a consultation with the abortionist, but a consultation does not grant authority nor should it give culpability to the woman.
Many women went through consultation, and while still on the abortionist’s table had second thoughts about being there, had felt manipulated, had felt there was something wrong. In the best of situations they won against all peer pressure and the social pressure of the clinic staff and literally ran from the abortionist table. There are numerous such stories and young men and women who will tell those stories today, they are alive because their mother ran from the clinic.
Legally speaking, a consultation is not the same as performing an abortion. As we look to the future we must understand that the purpose of the law is not to blame, but in fact to instruct. The law principally is a teacher and a protector. We are as a society addressing abortion to protect children and young women.
Remember, when we protect young women who have been sex trafficked, we do not demand they be prosecuted as prostitutes. We hunt down the manipulators and pimps who took advantage of them. It is they whom the law must more stridently address.
Similarly, laws regarding truancy are not designed to ‘punish’ students who are absent from school. Rather their purpose is to ensure that that student is getting an education. And if there is to be any penalty, it ought to be directed toward malfeasant parenting. The student is to be protected by the truancy laws, not punished by them.
As states consider enacting new pro-life laws, we must look to protect the second victim of the abortion: the indirect object of the abortionist pursuit, the vulnerable young mother. She is in that unfortunate situation. We must not punish women, but use the law to guide. And to keep them from harm, we must punish the perpetrators.