YES, IT IS A HOLOCAUST
"Moderate" and "pragmatic" politicians urge the pro-life movement
to compromise. But the only logical argument against abortion is an
unflinching insistence on principle.
by K. D. Whitehead
Fifty years ago, in the middle of World War II, in January 1944, Arthur
Koestler wrote an article in the New York Times Magazine entitled "On
Disbelieving Atrocities." In it he took the democracies to task for
shutting out the reality of the evils being perpetrated in Nazi-occupied
Europe: evils which were later abundantly verified, and in many ways
summed up and symbolized by what we have today come to call "the
Holocaust"-the extermination of millions for base ideological reasons.
Today museums are erected so that we may never forget the horror of those
events, now long past. At the time, however, those like Arthur Koestler
who attempted to alert public opinion to the Nazi atrocities encountered a
steady, even grim determination never to allow public opinion to be unduly
affected by the gigantic evils that were being reported.
A refugee from Hitler's continental New Order, living in England, Koestler
described himself as belonging to a group of "escaped victims or eye-
witnesses...who, haunted by our memories, go on screaming on the wireless,
yelling at you in newspapers and in public meetings, theaters and cinemas.
Now and then we succeed in reaching your ear for a moment." Koestler noted:
I know it each time it happens by a certain dumb wonder on your faces...But
it only lasts a minute. You shake yourselves like puppies who got their fur
wet; then the transparent screen descends again, protected by the dream
barrier which stifles all sound.
Precisely because the Holocaust perpetrated during World War II today
represents everyone's prototypical example of man's inhumanity to man, it
is worth quoting further from Koestler's eloquent 1944 testimony as to just
how things were at the time. It wasn't easy to persuade anyone to believe in
the horror while it was actually going on:
We, the screamers, have been at it now for about ten years. We started on
the night when the epileptic van der Lubbe set fire to the German Parliament;
we said that if you don't quench those flames at once, they will spread all
over the world; you thought we were maniacs. At present we have the mania
of trying to tell you about the killing-by hot steam, masselectrocution,
and live burial-of the total Jewish population of Europe. So far three
million have died. It is the greatest mass killing in recorded history; and
it goes on daily, hourly, as regularly as the ticking of your watch. I have
photographs before me on the desk while I am writing this, and that accounts
for my emotion and bitterness. People died to smuggle them out of Poland;
they thought it was worthwhile. The facts have been published in pamphlets,
white books, newspapers, magazines, and what not. But the other day I met
one of the best-known American journalists over here. He told me that in the
course of some recent public-opinion survey nine out of ten average American
citizens, when asked whether they believed that the Nazis commit atrocities,
answered that it was all propaganda lies, and that they don't believe a word
of it. As to this country, I have been lecturing now for three years to the
troops, and their attitude is the same. They don't believe in concentration
camps; they don't believe in the starved children of Greece, in the shot
hostages in France, in the mass graves in Poland; they have never heard of
Lidice, Treblinka, or Belzec; you can convince them for an hour, then they
shake themselves, their mental self-defense begins to work and in a week the
shrug of incredulity has returned like a reflex temporarily weakened by a
shock.
Clearly all this is becoming a mania with me and my like. Clearly we must
suffer from some morbid obsession, whereas the others are healthy and normal.
But the characteristic symptom of maniacs is that they lose contact with
reality and live in a phantasy world. So, perhaps, it is the other way round;
perhaps it is we, the screamers, who react in a sound and healthy way to the
reality which surrounds us, whereas you are the neurotics who totter about
in a screened phantasy world because you lack the faculty to face the facts.
Were it not so, this war would have been avoided, and those murdered within
sight of your day-dreaming eyes would still be alive.
At least in 1944 some of the Cassandras like Arthur Koestler had access to
the major public media in order to report what was going on-in order to be
able to "scream" within someone's hearing. Maybe they were not successful
in convincing people to believe in the atrocities, but at least they had a
few substantial public platforms from which to launch their cries. Koestler
spoke, after all, of "screaming...on the wireless...in newspapers...public
meetings, theaters, and cinemas...." His own article "on Disbelieving
Atrocities" was published in the New York Times Magazine, no less.
Today's Holocaust
Today another Holocaust is being perpetrated, while those who are again
desperately trying to rouse the public against it have little or no access
to any important media or other public platforms. When these new "screamers"
are accorded any public notice, it is usually only to be treated as a new
class of what Arthur Koestler styled "maniacs." While they are obsessed with
the horror of what is happening, the average person goes on imperturbably
living in an unreal dream world.
Yet the facts about the new Holocaust are again quite readily available,
and even well known to anyone who has taken the trouble to focus on them.
Once again "pamphlets, white books, newspapers, magazines, and what not"
have all been published about this contemporary Holocaust-although most have
been circulated privately, and largely ignored by mass-market publishers. In
spite of this, the indications are that very large numbers of people either
do not know about it or, more likely, are determined not to let themselves
be affected by the reality-they are determined not to admit, in other words,
that what is occurring is, in fact, a Holocaust.
For it is not the case that there is never any public reference to today's
Holocaust. On the contrary, it is frequently referred to and even rather
extensively covered, both in the media and elsewhere; it is the subject
of frequent public debate and discussion. Letters to the editor calling
attention to it, usually from two opposite points of view-like similar
letters to the members of Congress- are common; so are bumper stickers and
similar sloganeering. What is mostly lacking amid all the public attention,
however, is almost any real, solid, accurate information about just what it
really is-what it really entails, and what its consequences are for our way
of life.
It is actually a horror on the level of, and even exceeding, the appalling
atrocities which Arthur Koestler was trying to expose back in 1944. Yet it
is most commonly presented to the public in the guise of an absolutely
necessary modern "benefit" which helps people live autonomous lives guided
by their own personal decisions and choices; it is even supposed to stem
from the exercise of a woman's "constitutional right.
For the Holocaust of today to which I refer, of course, is the atrocity of
legalized abortion. You had probably already guessed that I was leading up
to this. And I can even imagine the rising level of exasperation some may
feel at attempts to link abortion to the Holocaust. One of the standardized
ways in which the reality of abortion is neutralized, obscured, or denied
today is by rejecting-usually indignantly-the notion that legalized abortion
is in any way comparable with the Holocaust.
Nevertheless, if the World War II Holocaust represented a horrendous
institutionalization of man's inhumanity to man, involving the mass
extermination of millions, then legalized abortion today-which is nothing
else at all but the institutionalized and deliberate killing by medical
means, and on a massive scale, of children who have been conceived but not
yet born-surely also qualifies as another Holocaust.
In the United States the procedures used to perform abortions were first
institutionalized and have since been maintained by decisions of the United
States Supreme Court itself. In its latest major abortion decision, the 1992
Casey decision, the high court ruled that its original legalization of
abortion, in the Roe v. Wade decision, must stand because-in the words of
the Casey majority-"for two decades of economic and social developments,
people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define
their views of themselves and their places in society in reliance on the
availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."
This is indeed what the highest court in the land said: abortion must be
available "in the event that contraception should fail;" in such cases we
must be able to exterminate at will the children who are conceived. No
thought at all is given to the question of whether these children themselves
might not be the subject of rights, or have justice coming to them, if our
constitutional and legal system is still going to be able to claim in any
sense that it stands for "equal justice under law." Rather, that proud motto
would seem to have already been compromised, and perhaps fatally undermined,
with the Roe v Wade decision of 1973.
The New York Times, which had been willing to print Koestler's jeremiad
against the original Holocaust, welcome the current one with the editorial
comment that the Roe v. Wade decision represented what it called "a noble
cry of conscience." Now we really do know what is meant by "the banality of
evil!"
The overwhelming facts
On the purely factual level, there would similarily seem to be no longer
even any memory of how contraception was originally promoted in public
(against the perceived opposition of, most notably, the Catholic Church)
as an indispensable way to avoid ever having to resort to abortion. Modern
means of contraception had regularly been represented as "alternatives,"
supposedly preventive of abortion, whereas what has occurred historically
is that once contraception came to be considered acceptable and necessary,
abortion too came to be considered necessary, as an indispensable "back-up."
When was it ever debated, at what point was it ever decided, that lives
could now actually be terminated "in the event that contraception should
fail?" Whenever it was, this is now the law of the land.
If ever there was a harmful ideology, today's reigning and almost
universally unquestioned ideology-that a modern autonomous person must be
"free" to make his own decisions, regardless of how those decisions affect
others, who may not have any recourse of their own-surely must qualify as
producing utterly boundless evil. As the current principal argument and
justification for legalized abortion, this ideology, now enshrined into law,
is producing in the United States "daily, hourly, as regularly as the ticking
of your watch," as Koestler put it-some 4,400 abortions every day. This adds
up to 1.6 million per years, over 30 million since this lethal "medical"
procedure was legalized by the Supreme Court over two decades ago. 1992
statistics indicate that the incidence of abortion has dropped somewhat, to
around 15 million annually. This still means that well over one-fourth of all
the pregnancies in the United States today now terminate in abortion.
But is abortion really killing? I can imagine that exasperation level
rising again. The denial that abortion is killing is another one of Arthur
Koestler's "dream barriers" designed to enable people to escape having to
face the true consequences of the Supreme Court's decision.
The evidence is overwhelming that abortion is nothing else but-killing.
Moreover it is the killing of a human being. This is in no way a religious
or theological judgment. The scientific facts concerning human conception,
gestation, and development are all irrefutably established, and they all
support the conclusion that a distinct human being comes into existence at
the time of conception; these facts are readily available to anyone honest
enough to ascertain them. But once again the facts are almost never examined
or discussed; they are simply denied or dismissed out of hand. The question
raised by abortion is not the factual one of whether or not we are killing
a human being; we are. The question raised is the moral question of whether
or not we are entitled to do so.
I could dwell upon some of the more bloody and brutal recent techniques
by which abortions are currently performed: the so-called D & E procedure,
where the developing baby is literally cut up into little pieces; or the
D & X procedure, where the fully formed skull is pierced and the brains
sucked out so that the head can be more easily extracted. Yes, these
procedures are actually being carried out today by physicians trained in our
medical schools. Or I could dwell upon the process whereby the developing
baby swimming in the mother's amniotic fluid sharply recoils in pain from
the probing needle which will inject the saline solution, which in turn will
literally burn him to death. I could dwell on this sort of thing at sickening
length, in fact, without ever mentioning the harm that is also regularly done
to the women undergoing abortions.
Legal execution
But I do not have to dwell on any of these highly unpleasant things to make
my point. For the Supreme Court, in effect, has now admitted that abortion
does indeed involve the termination of the life of a developing human being
before birth; the court has only admitted this, however, in the very act of
deciding that this particular kind of homicide is nevertheless permissible,
and must definitely continue to be legal. A "life" is taken, all right, but
in the words of Justice Stevens in his concurring opinion in the Casey
decision, "an abortion is not the termination of a life entitled to 14th
Amendment protection."
That's the point; it is "defined" as a life which is not "entitled" to the
constitutional protections that everyone is supposed to enjoy.
In a rare moment of judicial candor, a New Jersey judge attempting to rule
under the constraints established by Roe v. Wade once remarked, quite
correctly, that this decision actually "legalized the execution of a human
being," but that, as a judge, he was bound by the ruling anyway, so long as
it remained "the law of the land."
The unborn are thus excluded from the equal protection of the laws supposedly
guaranteed by our Constitution, on the basis of a simple declaration that
they are not entitled to that protection-just as slaves were excluded by
definition from the same equal protection of the laws under the Dred Scott
decision over a century ago.
The comparison of legalized abortion with slavery-like our earlier
comparison with the Holocaust-is another of those things which is apt to
raise the exasperation level among proponents of the current legal regime.
It mightily irritates and annoys all the same people who are busy denying
reality, unwilling to face up to the facts. But the comparison is neverthe-
less quite exact, just as the comparison of Roe v. Wade with the Dred Scott
decision is quite exact. In each case, an entire class of human beings has
been deprived of all constitutional rights by a simple court ruling.
The denial of the reality that legalized abortion is not only sanctioned
legalized killing but also stands in direct and stark contradiction to the
basic principles of the American constitutional system-which can hardly
avoid being undermined generally by such an open contradiction of all that it
supposedly stands for-this is a denial which provides abundant confirmation
of the fact that millions of Americans today have fallen into Arthur
Koestler's category of "neurotics who totter about in a screened phantasy
world because [they] lack the faculty to face the facts.
Koestler's contemporary, George Orwell, similarly wrote that "at any
given moment, there is a sort of all-pervasive orthodoxy-a general, tacit
agreement not to discuss some large and uncomfortable fact." The reality
of abortion in America today would surely seem to be such a "large and
uncomfortable fact."
When the "dream barrier" lifts
Occasionally Arthur Koestler's "dream barrier" is lifted, and some truth
temporarily escapes. One such occasion was the meeting before the television
cameras between President Clinton and Pope John Paul II, when the latter
arrived in Denver in August 1993; it was repeated again when the President
visited the Pope in the summer of 1994. The media were obliged to report the
Pontiff's pointed remarks about the tragedy of abortion in America, but the
events were so unusual that President Clinton knew all along that he really
did not have very much to worry about; he scarcely exhibited any discomfort
on either occasion.
A similar occasion arose at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in
Washington, DC in February 1994, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta told an
audience which both President and Mrs. Clinton and Vice President and Mrs.
Gore:
...the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war
against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the
mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can even kill her own child,
how can we tell other people not to kill another?...Any country that accepts
abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to what
they want.
At that point in her address Mother Teresa received a standing ovation from
the audience. President Clinton, however (as journalist Cal Thomas reported)
"at that moment...reached for his water glass, and Mrs. Clinton and Vice
President and Mrs. Gore stared without expression at Mother Teresa. They did
not applaud. It was clearly an uncomfortable moment on the dais." It was the
dropping, again, of Koestler's 'dream barrier which stifles all sound."
Even though the barrier is sometimes lifted, and the truth does sometimes
escape, Mother Teresa herself nevertheless most accurately characterized
America today when she said that "people are not concerned with the millions
who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers."
Moreover, on those few occasions when the barrier is lifted, the practical
results generally fall tragically short of what is needed. To take yet
another example: the terrible truth about abortion has never been more
factually or eloquently told than by Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois
on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives during the debate on
the "Hyde amendment"-which for the past 18 years has generally prohibited
federal funding of abortion. Against all expectations, the Hyde amendment
was re-enacted in 1993 (although the pro-life forces had to agree this time
that pregnancies caused by rape or incest could be terminated at taxpayer
expense, as well as pregnancies that threaten the mother's life).
During the debate on his amendment, Hyde himself exhaustively presented,
as never before, all the terrible facts about legal abortion. He capably
reiterated all the arguments against the practice. (See the Congressional
Record for June 30, 1993.) There is no public record concerning whether the
members of the House of Representatives were embarrassed or chagrined or
ashamed, as they should have been. What the public record does show is that
neither Hyde's facts nor his arguments ever appeared in any media coverage
of the debate.
What appeared instead in the media coverage were "politically correct"
stories of how the new contingent of female House members were simply
outfoxed procedurally by the old-boy network that included Congressman Hyde.
(It is taken for granted by the media that any woman in public life must
necessarily favor keeping abortion legal.) Wait until next year, until these
women finally come into their own: that was the media message. And indeed
this year abortion is again being debated in Washington, this time as another
medical "benefit" of the health-care reform package proposed by President
Clinton.
The melancholy truth concerning public policy on abortion, as any serious
inquirer will quickly learn, is that our "dominant culture" is quite simply
not interested in the truth about abortion; it is simply resolved to have
abortions. For the moment, no facts or arguments will avail. With abortion,
we are dealing with something totally different from the usual debate about
public policy.
Irreversible?
It is widely accepted, for example, apparently without argument, that
abortion represents an ineluctable and overpowering modern imperative.
Certainly the sexual revolution is inconceivable without it, ant the sexual
revolution itself is also nearly universally acknowledged as an overwhelming
and irreversible fact of modern life. This is surely one of the strong
reasons-though not the only one-for the unreality which pervades nearly
every public discussion of abortion. It is also one of the reasons for the
strong disapproval so often expressed against demonstrations by pro-lifers-
the "screamers," the "maniacs," even when they are doing nothing but what
other demonstrators for other causes are regularly cheered and praised for
doing.
Few movements in American history have been more truly non-violent than the
pro-life movement. Yet-marking still another casualty for truth-the movement
is regularly accused of violence anyway. And the verifiably few violent acts
by isolated individuals are shrilly and selfrighteously laid to the charge
of the whole pro-life movement, to the point that Congress has now actually
enacted a Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, openly abridging
the First Amendment rights of pro-life demonstrators only (and, not
incidentally, possibly encouraging greater violence, because now pro-life
activists can be found guilty of felonies whether they are violent or not).
It is almost as if the failed attempt of Count von Stauffenberg and his
fellow conspirators to assassinate Adolph Hitler had been taken to be the
"problem" in Nazi-occupied Europe in the 1940s, instead of what the Nazis
themselves had done!
Whatever your case, then, it cannot be pro-life; it is not in fashion.
Today's bien-pensants irritably repeat, like a mantra, that the volatile and
"controversial" abortion issue must be settled once and for all; pro-lifers
must reconcile themselves and come to terms since it is plain that abortion
advocates will never come to terms. "Practical" people can see no other way
out; Americans, we are constantly told, are tired of this debate.
It is easy to understand why Americans might be uneasy about abortion.
After all, it represents a really monstrous situation in which Americans
have nevertheless decided to acquiesce, at least for the moment. Still
there is no way not to be uneasy. The idea that legalized abortion just
might require opposition on principle-that it just might happen to be one
of those fundamental and unavoidable issues that, if not faced and remedied,
can undermine our entire legal and constitutional system, indeed is already
doing so-the further idea that America cannot be left in the hands of a
public opinion apparently prepared to sacrifice a significant percentage of
the next generation to the insatiable demands of a sordid ideology-these are
all ideas that huge numbers of Americans are apparently not yet ready to
confront.
There can be no doubt at all that the leadership of the country's present
majority in the Democratic Party is firmly and frankly pro-abortion. The
well-heeled abortion lobby has for quite a while been among the most powerful
of the ideological special interests to which that party is in thrall. At
the party's 1992 convention, Pennsylvania's pro-life Governor William Casey
discovered that the subject of abortion could no longer even be discussed.
Democratic candidates generally see abortion, if not always as an automatic
winning issue, at least as a clear imperative for their campaigns, often
vying with one another in Democratic primaries to see who is more militantly
"pro-choice."
Presidential aspirants have understood for some time that they stand no
chance whatsoever of going anywhere in the Democratic Party nationally
unless they espouse a completely wide-open position on abortion. They fear
and respect the pro-abortion forces, in a way that none of the Republican
aspirants ever fear or respect the pro-life forces. Thus such formerly "pro-
life" Democrats as Jimmy Carter (he once said he was pro-life), Ted Kennedy
(he did, too), Jesse Jackson, and Bill Clinton all found it necessary to
renounce whatever pro-life sentiments they may ever have harbored in order
to launch their respective presidential bids. This renunciation seems to have
caused these men not even the slightest twinge of anguish or afterthought-a
fact which itself is a symptom of how definitively the abortion issue is
considered to have been settled.
Indeed it is hard to think of any other issue which is considered so
sacrosanct today. Our Constitution itself does not seem to be sacrosanct.
Nevertheless, even many who profess to be "pro-life" share the same general
assumptions about the permanence of legal abortion; they apparently do
believe that this ghastly procedure, unheard-of as a legal practice until
Lenin's Soviet Union first legalized it in 1920, can henceforth only be
opposed in the most tepid and minimalist ways. When William Butler Yeats
wrote his oft-quoted line-"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
are full of passionate intensity"-he certainly could have been talking about
the abortion issue today.
The encroaching silence
That a modern democratic government could actually be committed to promoting
an abortion Holocaust, which takes more American lives every year (1.5
million) than were lost in all the wars of American history (1.2 million)-
meanwhile considering the whole matter as respectable, politically correct,
somehow even a plus for freedom-all this is bad enough. What is worse is
that there is apparently no alternative political leadership in sight,
prepared to face up to the full horror of the situation. The situation is
exactly analogous to the one described by Arthur Koestler in 1944: neither
public opinion nor political leadership is prepared to admit the atrocity of
the Holocaust.
In July 1993, for example, President Clinton's first nominee for the Supreme
Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, was unanimously approved by the Senate Judiciary
Committee in spite of her assertion that "a woman's right to choose abortion
is central to a woman's life, to her dignity." The supposedly pro-life
Senators on the Judiciary Committee, who have solicited and accepted pro-life
support in their election campaigns, still joined in the unanimous vote-even
in spite of the disgracefully hostile treatment which "pro-choice" forces in
the Senate hat meted out to Republican nominees to the Court. Utah Republican
Orrin Hatch, who once introduced his own constitutional amendment to bar
abortion, was actually quoted as saying that a "pro-choice" President was
entitled to a "pro-choice" justice on the court!
While the Republican Party platform currently does contain a pro-life plank,
calling for a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn, there is
currently an internal debate on whether the Party can afford to maintain
that position. Influential Republicans are arguing that a constitutional
amendment is not in the cards-that no possible majority could be constructed
to support it. Therefore, many Republicans urge that the present pro-life
plank be eliminated in the name of political realism.
No doubt many Republicans would be enormously relieved to "put the abortion
issue behind us"-never mind how it is done. (And never mind that the Party
would have to sell its soul, forsaking the commitments it has made to win
the large-and still growing-pro-life and pro-family vote.) The truth is,
however, that those who think the Republican Party-or the country in general-
can "put the abortion issue behind us" are charter subscribers to George
Orwell's "all-pervading orthodoxy" which has tacitly agreed "not to discuss
a large and uncomfortable fact..."
Most observers recognize that no national Republican or conservative
victories are even possible in today's climate unless the pro-life and pro-
family constituency remains in the Republican ranks. Yet even in the face of
this hard fact, many Republican leaders go on insisting that a minimalistic
position is the only one that makes sense. Of course they do not want to
lose pro-life votes. But, calculating that pro-lifers have nowhere else to
go anyway, they are determined not to go any further than they must in
advocating real pro-life solutions.
Usually the argument is made that the battle to restore equal protection to
the unborn is irretrievably lost. Yet such protection was afforded by the
laws of all 5O states up until 1966-less than a generation ago-and scarcely
anyone protested. And little attention is paid to the question of whether
freedom and democracy can survive if "those days" are not brought back. No;
such ideas are ruled out in advance. In spite of the fact that they are right
on the principle, the pro-lifers are regularly told that they must be content
to work only for what is attainable today-for half-measures that constitute
pinpricks on the skin of the dominant abortion culture.
Concessions on principle
The fact is that the mini malist approaches to legalized abortion are
framed so as to concede in principle that at least some elective killing is
permissible. This admission, like the institution of slavery at the beginning
of the American republic, fatally divides the house, so that it cannot
indefinitely stand-and that means that, sooner or later, it will fall.
For those minimizers who protest that nobody will ever convince the average
American that a day-old embryo enjoys the same value as a nine-month fetus
ready to be delivered, the reply must be: "You were once a day-old embryo;
did you have a right to life, or not?" We cannot put a comparative price on
human life at various stages; that is already a concession on principle.
One of the main troubles with the partial or minimalistic solutions to
the abortion issue, then, is the illusion that this question is susceptible
to a compromise or "moderate" solution. In reality no such compromise is
possible, because the pro-abortion forces have from the very beginning
staked out the absolutist position that abortion is a woman's constitutional
right. What constitutional right can be compromised? On the contrary, a very
important step toward any political solution on abortion must be to establish
the truth that there cannot possibly be, under our Constitution, any "right"
to take the life of another human being.
Nevertheless, the idea that there ought to be some middle ground on the
abortion issue provides a convenient excuse for those who are unwilling
to take a principled stand. From this perspective pro-lifers are regularly
told, even by their "friends," that their movement can no longer expect
satisfactory political solutions-that they must instead concentrate on
incremental approaches such as helping women through problem pregnancies.
This sort of advice often may be well meant. But is bespeaks more than a
little ignorance, willful or not, of the real situation. Compassionate
alternatives to abortion have been offered for years, always with the
strong and steady support of the pro-life movement. No doubt there is always
a greater need. But the repeated accusations that pro-lifers only care about
babies before they are born is just another one of the lies regularly
propagated by the media.
Mother Teresa, in her address at the National Prayer Breakfast, pleaded
with pregnant women not wanting their babies to give them to her. "I am
willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to
a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child," she
announced. Many others stand similarly ready to help women-if "helping
women" were really the core problem created by legalized abortion.
There is no lack of compassion or of concrete "positive" solutions in the
pro-life ranks. But this kind of positive approach does not even begin to
compensate for the catastrophic damages and the deep moral corruption which
legalized abortion has now spread throughout our society. The fact is that
by now, millions of Americans have actually been involved in providing and
procuring abortion, and millions more have friends, associates, or family
members who have been involved. It is understandable that such people do
not want to be reminded about the evil of abortion. Naturally they will view
pro-lifers lifers as "screamers" and "maniacs." But the prospect of offending
sensibilities cannot be the basis on which America has to decide this
fundamental moral question.
No more patronizing
According to a study performed by the (pro-abortion) Alan Guttmacher
Institute, 83 percent of all abortions performed in the United States are
performed on unmarried women, 26 percent of whom are teenagers. And what
reasons do they offer? Some 75 percent said that "having a baby would
interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities." Interfere! The
next most common reasons cited were lack of money and what were called
"relationship problems." Less than 7 percent cited any "health" consideration
whatsoever (for what is supposedly a "medical" question). Well over 90
percent of the abortions performed in America today, in other words, are
performed for reasons or under conditions which polls indicate a large
majority of Americans oppose.
When we consider the casual, callous, and massive incidence of purely
convenience abortions, we may perhaps wonder whether the time has come for
fewer patronizing lectures addressed to pro-lifers lamenting their lack of
political realism and calling them to accept compromise solutions. Some
real questions have been waiting for an answer ever since abortion was
first legalized. Where is the compassion for the babies? When are those who
insist that our Constitution must mandate evil going to be summoned to
accept a compromise? How can we accept any legal killing and still expect
to maintain the integrity of our system?
Facing realities
What, finally, are we to think of today's abortion Holocaust, combined with
the apparent grim determination of the public and its leaders to avoid it?
What are we to think of the "pro-life" leaders so breathlessly eager to urge
pro-lifers-and pro-lifers only-to compromise?
First, nothing prevents pro-lifers from working for partial goals: waiting
periods; limitations on access to abortion; parental, spousal, and informed
consent; and other such measures-even while maintaining their ultimate goal
of a constitutional amendment. Let us get whatever we can. These measures
can also be part of the necessary public education process regarding
abortion. It is one of the more fatuous aspects of the position held by
"pro-life" compromisers that they should be summoning pro-lifers to work
for measures on which the pro-lifers are already precisely the ones doing
the work.
Yet no sensible pro-lifer imagines that these thing can serve as ultimate
goals; they merely represent what can be extracted from "the system" at the
moment. And as things stand, the political efforts that have to be exerted
today, even to achieve these limited goals, are nearly as great as promoting
the integral pro-life viewpoint anyway. So it is the latter that must remain
as the ultimate goal.
Pro-lifers cannot abandon a principled reaffirmation of what our Constitution
already supposedly guarantees: namely, the equal protection of law for all.
This is in no way some "absolutist" position inspired by theology; it is the
actual position set forth in the plain words of the Constitution.
To abandon a principled position, on whatever grounds of expediency, is
really to abandon not only the unborn but also the Constitution. If legalized
killing in whatever form cannot be abolished under the Constitution, then
the Constitution has already been abrogated. We are faced today with powerful
public movements working for such things as euthanasia and assisted suicide,
and soon it will be other forms of legalized killing-which, if current
trends continue, may also even become compulsory. None of this is any longer
the oretical; in various ways, it is already happening. We need only think
of the black comedy of the inept efforts by the State of Michigan attempting
to bring Jack Kevorkian to justice. All of this became possible only after
abortion was legalized, and the possibility of sanctioned killing became
established in principle.
The task of responsible political leadership today is not to acquiesce in
the current situation on the grounds that it is no longer easy effectively
to fight against it, but rather to find ways to alert the public to our real
situation and to its implications, and then to find ways to reverse direction
and restore the integrity of our legal and constitutional system.
It is also the task of responsible, serious political leadership to attempt
to lead the country on a better basis than merely consulting the latest
polls. In 1944 Arthur Koestler discovered that the polls demonstrated that
a clear majority of Americans disbelieved in Nazi atrocities. American
public opinion was wrong; the atrocities were real. And just as it was
the task of political leadership then to convince the people that the
Nazis' evil deeds should be opposed, so today it is the task of responsible
political leadership to convince the people that the evils of abortion
should be opposed.
The moral burden of leadership
Public opinion on the abortion issue is notoriously ill informed as well
as misinformed. It is also volatile. In other words, it can be changed. It
is one of the tasks of political leadership to change it, so as to restore
the integrity of our system. Polls have indicated that a majority of
Americans still do not understand that what we have today is a massive
regime of abortion, performed almost entirely for reasons of convenience.
But once a serious effort has been made to educate the public, it is quite
possible that a new and properly informed public opinion would recognize
the necessity of upholding our constitutional system. This is the way we
have to go.
To base a position on the current preferences of Americans, as ascertained
by highly dubious opinion polls, is to abdicate any claim to principled
leadership. This is especially true for Republicans and conservatives who
claim to care about the Constitution, and to oppose the excesses of liberal
judicial review. In particular, the idea that the Republican Party should
abandon its current pro-life plank would be a catastrophic mistake. Even if
no constitutional amendment is attainable in the near future, the symbolism
of dropping it as a goal would be universally perceived as an abject
capitulation before the sorry reality of our current moral corruption.
The abortion issue is not susceptible of any simple or immediate solution.
It is much too serious and fundamental an issue to allow any solution arising rom the usual compromises and splitting of differences that characterize
everyday political life. The abortion issue really is like the issue of
slavery, however unpalatable that recognition may be.
As Arthur Koestler pointed out 50 years ago, the first Holocaust was allowed
to take place because the world preferred to live with its own illusions,
unwilling to abandon politics-as-usual to confront a gigantic evil. It has
often been asked where all the "good Germans" were when the concentration
camp gas chambers went into operation, and the crematoria chimneys began to
smoke. But we Americans today have considerably less excuse than the Germans
under Hitler, since we do enjoy (at least for now) a political system that
remains comparatively free and responsive to appropriate political action.
It is not clear precisely how much longer that freedom will obtain, now that
we have begun to acquiesce in the legal curtailment of freedom. Already the
freedom of pro-lifers is increasingly abridged by such laws as FACE. It is
no accident that these constitutional outrages have also grown out of the
current abortion imperative; it always and inevitably corrupts everything
that it touches.
Nevertheless, it remains true for the moment that most Americans would
not be placing themselves in any particular jeopardy by opposing legalized
abortion, using normal political means. There are not even any penalties for
being a stalwart pro-life politician; many are in office and continue to do
quite well.
Of course it may be, tragically, true that the critical mass of leadership
simply does not exist among the Republicans conservatives capable of
understanding that the abortion question must be treated on the basis of
principle. If that is the case, pro-lifers must persist anyway. They must
persist because they are right about the basic issue. "Truth is mighty and
shall prevail!" Does a woman under our Constitution really have a "right"
to take a life? The answer is No. Abortion must be opposed on principle,
not only because it entails the killing of a human being, but also because
it is a lie.
KD. Whitehead, an assistant secretary of education in the Reagan
Administration, now works in Virginia as a writer, editor, and translator.
Taken from "The Catholic World Report," August/September 1994.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Trinity Communications 1994.
Provided courtesy of:
The Catholic Resource Network
Trinity Communications
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
The Catholic Resource Network is a Catholic online information and
service system. To browse CRNET or join, set your modem to 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit and no parity, and call 1-703-791-4336.
-------------------------------------------------------------------