Whatever the pretended moderation of its advocates, it would place on the ballot an up-or-down vote to end an unborn baby’s life.
Whatever the pretended moderation of its advocates, it would place on the ballot an up-or-down vote to end an unborn baby’s life.
S upporters of the proposed abortion amendment to the Arkansas constitution want to do away with virtually all Arkansas laws regarding abortion and allow abortion through all nine months of pregnancy. Those who don’t think this is wrong should consider the following evidence of the humanity of the unborn.
For one, there is already a precedent in our laws recognizing it. Someone who kills a pregnant woman and causes her unborn child to die as well can be prosecuted for double murder. The unborn are considered human according to criminal law: Thirty-nine states recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances.
Such precedent doesn’t only exist in the states. In 1999, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was introduced into the U.S. Congress. It defined violent assault committed against pregnant women as a crime against two victims: the woman and the fetus she carries. This law — which, admittedly, contains an abortion exception — was passed in 2004 after the murder of Laci Peterson and the fetus she was carrying.
There is also precedent for considering unborn children human in laws regarding inheritance. A few years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court held in McArthur v. Scott that the child in utero is entitled to secure inheritance and property rights.
Viability is one of the issues influencing the proposed amendment, though it is not mentioned in the amendment’s text. It was also a big issue with Roe v. Wade. It’s understandable why. The American public is uncomfortable with the abortion of a viable unborn child that is capable of living outside the mother. But here’s the fact not usually discussed, at least in the public arena: Viability dating is at best up to two weeks inaccurate in the first two trimesters of pregnancy, and as much as up to 30 days in the third trimester. So an issue with the use of viability in the decision process is the inaccuracy — up to four weeks off. That means that what was thought to be a pre-viable pregnancy can be viable, but allowed to be terminated based on erroneous dating.
Dr. Norm Fost, a well-respected pediatric bioethicist, brought up a second issue with viability. In 1980, he pointed out that the “limited moral significance of ‘fetal viability,’” depends on medical technology. Over time, fetal viability progresses towards conception. I lived to witness this. While I was in training, viability was considered to be 27–28 weeks. After many years, the numbers dropped to 24 weeks. Before I retired, babies were being reported as surviving at 20 weeks. I believe Dr. Fost was right.
This legal and medical evidence aside, let’s think about common intuition. How can little children know mommy has a baby in her tummy (some of which even dogs and cats also seem to be aware of), yet grown adults deny it, saying it’s just a cluster of cells? By five to ten weeks, it is possible to recognize a tiny little human. I spent decades as a pediatrician; no one can persuade me that unborn children are not human. Nor could anyone persuade the parents who grieve while holding their pre-viable, yet visibly fully human, deceased baby.
I will never forget the few instances when, with much sadness, we were unable to resuscitate infants just under the edge of viability, despite all of our best medical efforts. But I will never regret trying. The objective is to offer a chance of survival. Nature, or “their Creator,” as our Declaration of Independence says, decides if they will.
What we’re left with, after going through all of that, is another consideration: Being wanted is also an issue. Yes, baby showers, painting the baby’s room, and getting it ready with a crib, and diapers surely confirm our acceptance that there is life in that tummy, a little human being approaching birth. There’s great joy awaiting new life.
But there appears to be a double standard — wanted vs. unwanted — that is, perhaps, discriminatory. How else can anyone explain one pregnancy being celebrated, while another is dismissed, all dependent on a woman’s choice? Who would vote for terminating a baby’s life because she is not wanted, or inconvenient? As a nation, we have risen time after time to address discrimination through legislation. It’s time to address the rights of the unborn, to codify the rights of all unborn babies, not just the wanted. All babies matter.
We marvel at the wonderful works of art and music humans have created over the millennia. But to a pediatrician and parents, there’s nothing more amazing than creating a baby, and seeing her for the first time. There may be suffering, tears, and great sacrifice on the part of the parents, but I didn’t see regrets. What I saw was a deep love that words cannot express completely.
By setting the stage for the evisceration of any protective laws on abortion in the state, the Arkansas Abortion Amendment denies all of this. Whatever the pretended moderation of its advocates, it would place on the ballot an up or down vote to end an unborn baby’s life, whatever the condition of the child or the circumstances of birth. There is nothing reasonable about keeping Arkansans from protecting the unborn in any way. Those of us who believe in life, in the humanity of the unborn, should decline to sign the petition to place this amendment on the ballot this fall.
Let’s choose love and life, Arkansas.