Sometimes the stars align and things happen the way they’re supposed to. Like starting Women’s History Month with a wonderful gift to women, or at least those unborn.
On the eve of the 31-day period that celebrates beauty, intelligence, talent, majesty and all other traits shared by brotherhood, the Senate by a margin of 48 to 46 rejected Roe’s attempts to codify v. Wade and give women a federal right to abortion.
The timidly named “Women’s Health Protection Act” would, if passed, have invalidated all state laws that provided limitations on a mother’s right to terminate her pregnancy. It was a knee-jerk reaction to the prospect that Roe would be struck down by the Supreme Court, allowing all 50 states to build their own abortion landscapes.
And that frightened the kind of person who thinks that women’s history includes a real “right” to abortion in the Constitution, and that women’s autonomy requires a real “right” to get pregnant, and that dignity of women requires a real “right” to ignore the dignity of nascent human life.
To be fair, women who think the power to give life is much less empowering than the power to end it actually have a legitimate reason to be nervous. While it’s far from certain this court will overthrow Roe, especially with question marks like Roberts and Kavanaugh sitting somewhere in the middle of the bench, many pro-lifers are cautiously optimistic that Roe will eventually be erased from the bench. the jurisprudential horizon.
But our cautious optimism translates into apoplexy for the other side, and they started pushing laws that, to be honest, would have been struck down as soon as someone challenged them in court. There were no exceptions for religious opposition. The legislation provided for abortion up to the moment of birth, which even under Roe might have been prohibited under the right circumstances. The principle of states’ rights has been completely ignored.
Every Republican voted to oppose the Women’s Health Protection Act. Even the senses. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, notorious proponents of abortion rights, refused to jump on the “federalize abortion” bandwagon and countered with their own more moderate bill.
“I have long supported women’s right to choose, but my position is not without limits, and this partisan women’s health protection law simply goes too far,” Murkowski said in a statement. “It would largely supersede state laws and infringe on Americans’ religious freedoms.”
Any celebration of women must include a celebration of their ability to give life, to nurture it, to protect and guide it, to teach it lessons of virtue and compassion, to protect it, to perpetuate it. And far too many women – and men – forget that. Worse still, they see this ability as a hindrance to bigger things, like an office nook.
You don’t have to agree with me on abortion. Most, I think, don’t. As polls show, most believe women should have some ability to empty their bellies of unwanted cargo. And I resign myself to the fact that it will always be the case.
But legislation that ignores the right of a Catholic physician to abstain from taking life, and that treats the states as castrated servants of a federal overlord, is repugnant. Beyond that, it’s dangerous. And I’m very grateful that 48 principled senators know that.
A friend once told me that the key was to change hearts and minds. We must, he said, help women understand that abortion does not solve any problem and creates a world of suffering. He said the legislation was ultimately ineffective.
I replied that I really had no interest in changing the hearts and minds of people who believe that destroying unborn life is a right. And that’s why working the courts and legislatures is essential to making next year’s Women’s History Month, when we can finally celebrate the glory of unborn women, a reality.