ROE V. WADE DECISION WAS PURE RECKLESSNESS

 

By Bill Dunn

 

President Barack Obama and former Vice-president Dick Cheney have a lot in common. Yes, these two men have very different backgrounds and come from opposite ends of the political spectrum. But they do have much in common.

 

Back in 2006, Mr. Cheney gave late-night comedians the gift that keeps on giving when he went on a hunting trip with a friend. While hunting for quail, the vice president heard a rustling in the bushes. He didn’t know for sure if it was a bird, but he decided to shoot anyway. Moments later his friend staggered out from behind the bush with shotgun pellets embedded in his body. Luckily he wasn’t killed.

 

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Candidate Obama appeared at Pastor Rick Warren’s church. Warren raised the topic of abortion, and asked Mr. Obama when life begins. Obama said the answer to the question is “above my pay grade.” In other words, he said he did not know for sure.

 

Two common legal concepts are reckless endangerment and negligent homicide. If you are not certain what is causing the rustling in the bushes—a bird or a human being—but you shoot anyway, even if it turns out to be a bird, you are still guilty of reckless endangerment. If it turns out to be a human being and you kill him, even though you didn’t mean to kill a person, you are guilty of negligent homicide. The rule is simple: if you don’t know for sure, don’t pull the trigger. You must err on the side of caution.

 

If you are not certain about the identity of what grows in a pregnant woman’s womb—a blob of tissue or a living human being—but you advocate for abortion anyway, even if it turns out to be a blob of tissue, you are guilty of reckless endangerment. If it turns out to be a human being and you advocate for abortion, even though you didn’t mean to kill a person, you are guilty of negligent homicide. The rule is simple: if you don’t know for sure, you don’t advocate for abortion. You must err on the side of caution.

 

Thirty-eight years ago this month, the U.S. Supreme Court pondered the Roe v. Wade case. Although the justices acknowledged they did not know for certain what was causing the rustling in the bushes, they ruled that it’s OK to shoot anyway. They threw caution to the wind. At best, their decision was reckless endangerment. At worst, it was negligent homicide.

 

In 1973 it may have been reasonable to answer the question about when life begins by sincerely saying, “I don’t know.” However, here in the second decade of the 21st century, modern science has taken away any doubts. Ultrasound machines, tiny video cameras, and major advancements in biochemistry have opened up a window on the womb. That little blob of tissue is anything but a blob; it is a unique human being. We now know King David was correct when he proclaimed to the Lord: “You formed my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Marvelous are thy works” (Psalms 139:13-14).

 

Anyone nowadays who refuses to face this issue honestly, and instead offers a glib “above my pay grade” reply, is not only putting his head in the sand, he is being completely reckless.

 

One highly publicized example of recklessness gave comedians plenty of material for jokes. Another example of recklessness is no laughing matter. It is a tragedy and our national shame.