The issues of abortion Academic

Abortion FAQ

"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them." [Romans 1:32]

The Consequences of Roe v. Wade
48,589,993
Total Abortions since 1973

Clinton's Bogus Claims About Abortion - The Facts

Basic terminology of the abortion debate

‘Roe v. Wade’ refers to the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
‘Right to Choose’ refers to a pro-choice stance, upholding Roe v. Wade.
‘Right to Life’ refers to a pro-life stance, seeking to overturn or limit Roe v. Wade
Pro-life advocates refer to Roe v. Wade as an example of ‘Judicial Activism’ or ‘legislating from the bench’, i.e., that judges are making the law rather than interpreting it. In these terms, pro-life advocates believe in ‘Strict Constructionism’, or a literal interpretation of the Constitution with no implied rights.
A ‘Litmus test’ requires Vice Presidential & Supreme Court nominees to agree with one’s abortion view.
‘The Human Life Amendment’ would be a Constitutional Amendment overturning Roe v. Wade. There is currently no such Amendment pending, but proponents regularly introduce ‘Human Life Bills’ in Congress.

Roe v. Wade

The essence of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is that Constitutional rights apply only after birth; hence abortion does not breach a person’s right to life. States cannot regulate 1st trimester abortions; states can regulate but not ban 2nd trimester abortions; and states can ban 3rd trimester abortions (as many have).

The debate on abortion generally focuses on when human life begins. The courts often focus on ‘viability’, the point at which the fetus could survive outside the womb. Viability naturally begins at about 6 months of pregnancy, but with modern medical advances the age of viability is pushed back substantially. Strong pro-life advocates believe that the fetus should be protected from the moment of conception.

Abortion Legislation

The details of abortion legislation focus on what the states can regulate and what they can ban in later trimesters:

‘Partial-Birth Abortion’ refers to a late-term abortion method which induces a breech delivery and collapses the fetal skull before completing delivery. This procedure is banned in 24 states, but pro-choice advocates, including President Clinton, have sought to overturn state laws with a federal ruling. In April, the Supreme Court rejected a Nebraska law banning partial birth abortions. In June, the Court said that the Nebraska ban was unconstitutional because it had no exceptions and barred second trimester abortions.
Each state decides if ‘Parental Consent’ is required for teenagers seeking abortions. The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that spousal consent cannot be required by the states.
Each state also determines rules about ‘informed consent’, about 24-hour waiting periods, and about when viability occurs after the 1st trimester.

Related Legislation

‘Clinic Access’ laws refer to what pro-life protesters may and may not do at the entrances to abortion clinics, and how far away they must stay. Clinic access became an issue after several abortion clinics were bombed and several abortion doctors were shot in recent years.

‘RU-486’ is a drug that induces abortion in early pregnancy. In September 2000, after 12 years of study, the FDA approved the use of RU-486 until the 7th week of pregnancy.

‘Cloning’ is a rapidly advancing technology in which a fetus develops from only one parent. It has been successful in animals, and is entering trial stages with humans. Pro-life advocates generally oppose cloning on the same basis that they oppose abortion.

‘Stem Cells’ are undifferentiated cells, which are useful in research for cloning and for treating many diseases. Stem cells are best taken from human fetuses; hence the pro-life opposition. Many pro-life advocates support fetal stem cell research because of the medical potential. In 2001, Pres. Bush announced that the federal policy would be to allow fetal stem cell research on existing stem cell lines but not on new ones.

Buzzwords in the abortion debate

Describing abortion as a health issue or as a women's rights issue is a pro-choice stance.

Describing abortion as a moral issue or as an issue of balancing the mother's rights with the fetus' rights, is a pro-life stance.

Any reference to "the rights of the unborn" is a strong pro-life stance, as is defining life "from the moment of conception."

Any reference to "the rights of the mother" is a strong pro-choice stance, as is defining a "right to privacy" (between a woman and her doctor).

As mentioned above, the most obscure buzzword is that supporting ‘judicial activism’ implies a pro-choice stance, while supporting ‘strict constructionism’ implies a pro-life stance. In nominations for Supreme Court justices, asking this question is the archetypical ‘Litmus Test’ -- liberal Senators spent many hours questioning Clarence Thomas on whether he held a Strict Constructionist view of the Constitution (he did not admit so).

For serious policy wonks, the most important abortion buzzword is ‘Stare Decisis’ -- that is the basis upon which Clarence Thomas declined to rule against Roe v. Wade. Thomas meant that although he would have ruled against Roe v. Wade in 1973, he would not do so now because the 1973 Supreme Court ruling had been in force for a quarter century and hence has precedential weight.

‘Stare Decisis’ was the major topic in the confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito in 2005 (with Senators asking if Alito would rule against Roe v. Wade -- see our hearing excerpts for details).

In 2006, South Dakota directly challenged Roe v. Wade by passing an abortion law that would only allow abortions when maternal life was in danger (not even for rape). This law is seen as a test of Alito's abortion stance, as well as that of the new Chief Justice John Roberts.

The Partial Birth Abortion Issue:

On December 7, 1995, the United States Senate passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act which would end partial-birth abortions by a margin of 54-44. House members voted 2-to-1 in favor of the ban, 288-139 [Republicans 215-15; Democrats 73-123; Independents 0-1]. When it reached the desk of President Bill Clinton on April 10, 1996, he vetoed the Act, thereby allowing the brutal procedure to continue with no restrictions.

In spite of testimony by medical experts to the contrary, Clinton justified his action with the claim that this procedure affects only hundreds of people and was necessary to protect the life and health of the mother - even though the abortionists themselves admitted its use was purely elective.

Once again on Oct. 8, 1997, the House passed a Partial Birth Abortion Ban by a veto-proof vote of 296-132. The Senate passed the bill in May (64-36), three votes less than the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override Clinton's veto. On Oct. 10, 1997, President Clinton again signed the veto papers, this time privately and without fanfare in the Oval Office. On July 23, 1998 the House again voted to override President Clinton's veto by a vote of 296-132.

Ban Passed into Law

On November 5, 2003, with Bill Clinton out of the way, President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S. 3) into law. The partial-birth abortion procedure is used after 20 weeks (4 1/2 months) of pregnancy -- often to six months, seven months, and even later.

Critics have characterized Partial Birth Abortion as an unnecessarily brutal act that no one should tolerate. "You wouldn't treat an animal this way," Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde, R-Ill., one of the House's foremost abortion opponents, said during floor debate. Charles T. Canady, R-Fla., the bill's chief sponsor, said the procedure was perilously close to homicide. "The only difference between the partial birth abortion and homicide is a mere three inches," said Rep. Charles T. Canady, R-Fla. "Most partial-birth abortions are performed on the healthy children of healthy mothers."

The "Health" Exception

The bill passed by Congress allows a partial-birth abortion to be performed if necessary to save a women's life. But pro-abortion groups and President Clinton also demand an exception for "health" abortions - a huge loophole that would allow partial-birth abortions for "emotional well-being" or "depression."

The late Dr. James McMahon, who performed abortions on all of the women who Bill Clinton paraded before the public when he vetoed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban testified that only 9% of the 2,000 partial-birth abortions he performed involved "maternal health" [the most common being "depression"]. Another 56% were for "fetal flaws," ranging from trivial to grave; the most common being Down Syndrome. Over one-third involved neither fetal nor maternal indications, however trivial - in other words, "elective".
Dr. Martin Haskell, who has performed over 1,000 partial-birth abortions, said that he performs them "routinely" for non-medical reasons, and that 80% are "purely elective." Medical experts testified before congressional committees that it is never necessary to kill a baby that has been almost entirely delivered to preserve the life or health of the mother.

The American Medical Association's board of trustees released a report in May 1997, saying there are no situations in which "intact dilation and extraction [known as partial-birth abortion] is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion."

Abortion and the Early Church

From the Mouths of the Doctors Themselves

Science And Abortion- Life Is Life, Not Tissue

Testimony of Abortion Survivor

Graphic Testimony of What Happens To Babies in Abortion Clinics

"A Smoking Flax He Will Not Quench, A Bruised Reed, He Will Not Break,"