Archive for the ‘Law’ Category

Column: An International Right to Life

Monday, February 28th, 2011

Advocates of legal abortion want more than to keep Roe vs. Wade intact. They want to establish an international right to abortion, enforced on an international level, and overriding the decisions of individual nations to protect their own preborn children.

But, as usual, these people have it not only wrong, but completely upside-down. The international right that has to be proclaimed and protected is the right to life.

And there are actually some steps that have been taken in that direction. We need to know about, clarify and strengthen, and build upon those steps.

After the horrors of the Second World War, people around the world realized that while individual nations have the duty to protect their citizens, such national protection isn’t always enough. What happens if a nation’s leaders turn against some of their own people? Who is responsible to intervene? To whom do those leaders and that nation answer?

The sense that there was a need for an international body to acknowledge and protect basic human rights – which individual nations can neither give nor take away – led to the development of the United Nations. The UN Charter (1945) states that its purpose is:

“to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person.”

Within three years, this institution published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, stating that:

“recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”

Moreover, Article 3 of the Declaration states:

“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”

Article 6 states:

“Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.”

These words are true, but in order to have binding force, it was clear that more than a proclamation was needed. The substance of the Universal Declaration was therefore placed in hard legal form as an international treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966), onto which over 160 nations have signed. This treaty states in Article 26:

“All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.”

Moreover, a Declaration on the Rights of the Child was issued in 1959, stating:

“…the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

This, too, was incorporated into a treaty, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which states in Article 6:

“States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.”

To us in the pro-life movement, the next steps are obvious. The language of these declarations and treaties needs to be brought to its consistent and logical conclusion. The violence of abortion, which denies the child’s right to life and kills the child, is in fact prohibited by the language of these documents.

UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011

In 1959, the United Nations issued the Declaration on the Rights of the Child. This document states that, “…the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.” This was incorporated into a treaty, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states in Article 6: “Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.” To us in the pro-life movement, the next steps are obvious. The language of these declarations and treaties needs to be brought to its consistent and logical conclusion. The violence of abortion, which denies the child’s right to life and kills the child, is in fact prohibited by the language of these documents.

Sitting Back is Not an Option

Thursday, August 26th, 2010

Pro-abortion politicians will often say to us, “Let’s just agree to disagree.” Our response? We have the greatest respect for those who disagree with us. But when victims are oppressed, we don’t sit back and “agree to disagree” with the oppressor. Rather, we intervene to save the victim. We have been victims of terrorism in America. We don’t just “agree to disagree” with the terrorists; we stop the terrorists.

Abortion is not about beliefs; it’s about bloodshed. It’s not about viewpoints, it’s about victims.

Those who need protection need it precisely because there are some who think they shouldn’t have it. When it comes to protecting the vulnerable, disagreement is an argument for action, not for sitting back and letting the violence happen simply because some think it should.

No Middle Ground

Wednesday, August 25th, 2010

Pro-abortion politicians will often say to us, “My office does not involve any decision-making about abortion.” Our response? Your position on abortion says a lot about your character and worldview. If you cannot oppose an act of violence against the most defenseless children, on what basis will you oppose violence against the rest of us?

Your position on abortion also tells us what you think of government. A nation either recognizes that the right to life comes from God, or thinks that it comes from its own government. Whether a public official is actually going to vote on the legality of abortion is beside the point. Before we cast our vote for our leaders, we need to know what kind of authority they think we are giving them.

The Cornerstone of Human Rights Issues

Monday, August 23rd, 2010

Pro-abortion politicians will often say to us, “Abortion is just one of many issues; I embrace a consistent ethic of life.” Our response? The foundation of a house is only one of many parts of the house, but it is essential in order to build the other parts. That is why the Catholic bishops teach that the right to life is the foundation of all human rights issues, and that our priority has to be fighting abortion.

That is also why the Pope has declared that pleas that politicians make on behalf of human rights are false and illusory if they do not stand up for the right to life.

The fact is that nothing takes more human life than abortion — no crime, disease, natural disaster, war, or act of terrorism.

Laws Can Be Changed

Friday, August 20th, 2010

Pro-abortion politicians will often say to us, “Abortion is the law of the land.” Our response? The “law of the land” can be changed, just as it was changed regarding slavery and segregation. The law of the land is meant to protect the good of the people. Because imperfect people make the law of the land, they sometimes make mistakes, and allow things which experience later proves are not good for the people.

That’s why the law can be changed. Laws once passed can be amended or nullified. Court decisions once passed can be overturned. Even the Constitution can be amended.

Claiming that abortion is the law of the land is a weak excuse. Leadership means seeing the injustices that others miss, and inspiring people to make the necessary changes.

Abortion is Not Health Care

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

Pro-abortion politicians will often say to us, “Legislators should not be practicing medicine.” Our response? We’re not asking you to practice medicine, but to prevent the abuse of medicine. Medicine is for the purpose of preserving life; abortion takes life. Surgery helps the body do what it is supposed to do; abortion stops the body from doing what it is supposed to do. There is no disease that abortion cures.

Legislators are not called to practice medicine. But laws do prohibit doctors from carrying out procedures without the patient’s consent, from using certain types of medications, and from all kinds of malpractice. The practice of medicine is regulated by all kinds of laws that protect the lives of patients. All we ask is that the unborn be included in that protection.

Overstepping Its Authority

Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

Pro-abortion politicians will often say to us, “The government should not be involved in such a personal decision as abortion.”

Our response? The government got “too involved” in abortion when it claimed to have the authority to deprive some human beings of their right to life. The Declaration of Independence asserts that government exists to secure the rights already bestowed by the Creator.

Some say it is none of the government’s business to prohibit abortion. Actually, it is none of the government’s business to permit abortion. As soon as a government does so, it transgresses its authority, denies the Declaration of Independence, and forsakes its primary duty, which is to protect the lives of its citizens.

Indeed, the government should get out of the business of abortion.

I’m personally opposed to abortion, but can’t impose my views on others.

Monday, August 16th, 2010

Pro-abortion politicians will often say to us, “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but can’t impose my views on others.” Our response? This is not a matter of views, but of violence. The law is supposed to protect human life despite the views of those who would destroy it.
Suppose someone does not believe that you are human. By holding that belief, they do not break any law. But if they try to kill you because of that belief, they have broken the law.
The law doesn’t care what they believe. The law simply protects your life, whether they recognize its value or not.
By passing laws to protect the unborn, we are not trying to force people to believe anything. We’re simply protecting lives that some people believe are worthless.

All Means Everyone

Friday, August 13th, 2010

Pro-abortion politicians will often say to us, “I respect your views, but I have to represent all the people.” Our response? That’s what we’re trying to say to you. If you neglect the unborn, you are not representing all the people. Roe vs. Wade excludes them from protection; we demand that they be included.

A public servant cannot legitimately ignore an entire segment of the public that is being destroyed.

Yes, an elected official has to represent all the people. That means that we cannot draw artificial lines that say that some people aren’t really people after all. But that’s what the pro-choice mentality does.

Elected officials should represent all the people. That starts with protecting all the people, whether they are convenient or inconvenient, healthy or sick, born or unborn.