Regulation and protection of the lives of unborn children is a matter of the States, not the federal Supreme Court which has proven itself incompetent regarding the issue. Such a policy would mandate an overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Removing the policy from the court system would place the regulation of abortion and protection of the unborn squarely in the hands of the people, and they would exercise this power though their various state legislatures or with the US House of Representatives that represents them in Washington.
The landmark 1972 Supreme Court decision declared that a child does not legally become a person with a Fourteenth Amendment protection of life until birth. This was accomplished on a technicality: Nowhere in the Constitution is an unborn person referred to as a person. This is due not to the Founding Fathers desire to exclude the unborn, but to a fact that there was no immediate problem before them to address.
The Court's judgment was clearly flawed and in the same vein as the 1800's era Dred Scott decision which determined that the Negro race may not be a citizen, even when born in the United States. The Court, in fact, determined that they were unable to determine when life begins, and then proceeded to give all benefit of doubt to the mother and none to the child, even though the child, not the mother, stood to receive the greater injury, with a loss of life against the mother's necessary inconvenience. With this, the Court found that the mother need not exercise any responsible behavior whatsoever in the way of restraint and self-control.
The Supreme Court had two valid options. They could have refused to decide and leave the matter in the hands of the people or they could have moved to protect the life of the unborn child.
Probably the better solution is both and more. Problems of rape, incest and coercion cannot allow the prohibition of the mother's right to choose when and by whom to bring forth a child. The State simply cannot require a woman to bring a child to term that was forced on her by a criminal act. This factor nearly entirely disallows a general prohibition of abortion because the state cannot easily distinguish whether the woman had acted responsibly and was given a "choice".
The States, having various religious and moral factors in effect in differing regions of the country, would be most able to make the choices as to how the unborn should be protected, but the Supreme Court should continue to have an important and necessary role.
A federal Court operating on Constitutional principles must act whenever there is a grievous injustice that a State is unwilling to correct. This probably necessitates a set of rules for determining the outcome in advance, because the birth of a child cannot be delayed for very long, and here is where Roe v. Wade became an important issue. The Court, however, refused to address the question of whether an unborn child really is a person and not just a legal explanation at some point before birth, similarly to the Dred Scott Court choosing to determine that a Negro is not a person because there is no absolute written proof of it. The Court left it to the States to determine whether a child is a person in the last stages of pregnancy, and found that it is not a person in earlier development. This position is obviously false. A child that can be born prematurely and live is most certainly a person at that point and may be a person at or before the point of conception.
The Court took an easy way out, pleasing those with a loud and vocal voice, and negating the rights of the unborn, which have no voice. This is again not unlike Dred Scott, where the Court found for the influential plantation owners at expense of voiceless African slaves.
More properly the Court should act when an injustice has taken place against either the mother or unborn child, such as when a woman that was brutally raped is forced by a state to bear the abuser's child, or when a child will be discarded late in a pregnancy by a mother that is desirous of removing the inconvenience that resulted entirely from her desires for experiencing physical pleasures derived out of the birth process. The Court, thus, should have generally left the question of abortion at the early stages of pregnancy in the hands of the States and prohibited most abortions at the federal level that are late in the pregnancy. It probably should have also disallowed the prohibition of abortion by a state for any credible reported rape. In this way the rights of both mother and child are protected in the only realistic way possible.
Those having a belief that no abortions should be allowed would not be satisfied, nor would be those who believe the woman may behave irresponsibly and have no restrictions placed before her. It would not seem that abortions may be disallowed after a rape under any circumstances. The state simply cannot act as an agent for the criminal and allow him to choose the woman who must then bear his child under state protections. It is better to make an effort to understand the reasons that cause rape, coercion and other forced activity and try to change that.
As to those who believe the birth process is of recreational value and that no responsible self-restraint is necessary, the understanding of the former -- the rapist -- may also resolve this problem, for a man acting against his wife without thought of self-control is behaving little different from him, even though his partner may be willing.
Any habitual behavior may become "comfortable" because it will be familiar. Western and other cultures have learned to abuse the birth process from an early age, and know no better, because only the religions teach not to, and these have been prohibited by the government from the public schools. A man who violates his wife with an abuse of the birth process, even when she is willing, has taken her honor from her.
Americans and their European brothers will in time come to realize the error they have made by lowering the bringing into the world of a precious child to a Saturday night entertainment process that will divide mankind by jealousies and anger, and not foster love or family unity. With this the desire and need for abortion will be eliminated.
-States' Liberty Party Nov 29, 2002