Follow Script Supreme Court Set Forth, and Abortion Might Have an End

   Forty years have swept away. Fifty-four million lives have been lost. Still, no state steps forward to save the unborn, simply by following the formula provided by none other than the Supreme Court justices, themselves.

   Simply pass a statute saying a fetus is a human. 

   How long after the Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade would it be before a state stepped forward to define the unborn as human? One year? Two? Surely with so much of the population being against abortion, somewhere a state would quickly pass such a law, reaching out to the unborn and claiming them as humans.

   We now approach 40 years. Still, no "personhood" statute. Jan. 22, 2013, will mark the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.  Even if you grant that not all pro-lifers believe a personhood statute is the answer, why would we not pass such a law? What harm would it do to define a fetus as human? Science says the fetus is human. Can a law be wrong for simply stating what science is now acknowledging? 

   Perhaps in this election, a voters initiative in some state, somewhere, will be passed. Those words from the Court justices back in the Roe v. Wade deliberations portend that such a state statute will come. Justice Potter Stewart looked at the plaintiff's attorney and asked, "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person within the protection of the 14th Amendment, you would have almost an impossible case here, would you not?" 

   "I would have a very difficult case,"  came the reply. 

   Chief Justice Warren E. Burger asked, "Could Texas constitutionally, in your view, declare that by statute that a fetus is a person for all constitutional purposes?"

  "The state could obviously adopt that kind of statute, and then the question would have to be adjudicated," Roe's attorney replied.

   So, why has it taken 40 years? And, still no such state law? Where is Utah and why doesn't Utah pass such a law? As Roe's lawyer said, a state could obviously adopt this kind of statute, and then it would have to be adjudicated. It is very possible it would be adjudicated all the way back to the Supreme Court.

   And Roe v. Wade would be overturned.
   Why are we not doing this thing? Why are we not passing such a law?

More Lives Lost to Abortion than to Leading Cause of Death

   If we wanted to the greatest good, and were to measure it by number of lives saved, what one thing would we do?

   End abortion.
   More lives are lost to abortion than to the leading cause of death, maybe by twice, in fact. In 2009, only 599, 413 deaths were attributed to heart disease, which is the leading cause of death in the United States. Compare that to abortion. It is said 1.2 million lives are lost each year to abortions. Abortion takes a life about every 30 seconds. 

1 in 5 of Us Do Not Make It Out Alive

   What if 41 percent of us didn't make it out alive? In New York City, it can be argued, 41 percent do not make it out alive.

   Out of their mother's womb, that is, not out of New York City. (Although some are going to suggest I would be quite right to say out of NYC.) Forty-one percent of all pregnancies in NYC end in abortion, if statistics are accurate. Nationwide, I believe, the mortality rate is about 20 percent. So, 20 percent nationwide "don't make it out alive."