As we approach the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision divining an absolute right to abortion in the U.S. Constitution, we would do well to pause and consider the impact of this monumental ruling and assess what it means for us in the days ahead.
One thing we know for sure: Roe has wrought a lot of dead babies. The United States is the well-established leader for abortion rates in the western world.
To be more precise, statistics reveal legalized abortion has led to the demise of countless unwanted babies. A vast majority of reported abortions in the U.S. are elective. According to information supplied by the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research group, 92% of abortions in America have nothing to do with rape or incest or the health of the mother. Those lives are exterminated as a matter of convenience.
This governmental authorization of abortion on demand is horrifying enough, but unless we begin to appreciate abortion for what it is, the future promises even greater devaluing of life.
Coupled with staggering advancements in DNA research, the “right” to abortion is on the cusp of facilitating full-fledged eugenics. In addition to being elective, abortions are now becoming selective.
Trends show that as many as 90% of unborn children diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. Obviously, that’s not a coincidence. It is the discovery of the extra chromosome that dooms these babies to never live outside the womb.
This all-too-common practice is a blatant violation of human rights.
And detection of Down syndrome is just the tip of the iceberg with available testing. Geneticists boast of over 2000 tests for pegging “genetic disorders.” As of today, that vague determination primarily relates to disabling conditions, like Down syndrome or spina bifida; tomorrow, the term could just as easily describe projected height or hair color.
The connection between eugenics and abortion is neither surprising nor novel; in fact, early proponents of abortion looked forward to the prospect. Margaret Sanger, founder of the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, was a staunch supporter of eugenics, advocating for policy that would compensate (bribe) poor people to be sterilized. Sanger envisioned a populace free of those with less-than-desirable traits. Modern medical technology, along with Sanger’s abortion legacy, allows her dream to become reality.
In countries around the world, from Liechtenstein to Armenia to China to India to Vietnam, sex-selective abortions are already taking place, dramatically changing population data in the process. Polling over the decades has also shown a consistent preference for boys amongst Americans. With changing technology and earlier ability to predict gender, sex-selective abortion is quickly becoming a part of prenatal care in the U.S.
Picking up on the disturbing pattern of selective abortions, some legislators have taken steps to curb it. The State of North Dakota passed a bill last spring that blocks abortions based on unwanted gender or a genetic defect, such as Down syndrome. While the law is facing challenge in court, it still stands. Similar measures were enacted in Arizona, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania, also banning abortions triggered by the sex of the child.
These and other legislative measures regulating abortions are encouraging. According to the Guttmacher Institute, “Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (2011–2013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (2001–2010).” These new laws indicate that Americans are slowly but surely coming to grips with the truth about abortion.
As we reflect on Roe v. Wade, pondering how great and grave the stain of abortion haunts our nation, we should note how far we’ve come on this fundamental issue. But as modern medicine advances, so should our vigor for the sanctity of life. We must continue to stand up for the weak, stand firm for life, and stand against the poorly-reasoned, destructive case that is Roe v. Wade.