The partial-birth abortion issue is a difficult one to address, as people on both sides of the issue tend to be easily swayed by their emotions. I mean, come on: I am arguing for a persons right to have a physician induce birth to abort a life. People may say that is a gross generalization of the procedure, but lets not kid ourselves. This is a nasty procedure and everyone knows it.

I am not going to say that this procedure is the product of our societys best intentions. Rather, it is one of those unfortunate procedures that I believe is constitutionally protected in this country.

For a long time in this country, abortions were illegal along with contraceptives and other things that offended the religiously devout. Then came those crazy liberal judges with their wacky ideas on liberty.

In 1965, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut showed that there is, in fact, an inference to the right to privacy in our Constitution. That case dealt with state laws preventing people from accessing birth control. It was also the main reason the Supreme Court voted eight years later to grant women the right to obtain legal abortions.

In the infamous Roe v. Wade case, the justices differentiated from the rationale of Griswold in that the court specifically cited the 14th amendments due process clause. This is one of the trickiest clauses in the whole Constitution. Its unspecific aim is to prevent the government from enacting laws that are contrary to the Constitution. This rationale was applied to abortion, wherein the court found that anti-abortion legislation prevented women from exercising their constitutionally given right to privacy.

This brings us to the fundamental debate over the issue of abortion, highlighted recently by the Supreme Court upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Gonzalez v. Carhart, 2007).

When does the concern of the state overrule the liberty of a person? I cannot even summarily try and answer this question in this editorial; people have spent their lives trying to formulate a valid, far-reaching equation.

To explain my deductive reasoning, we must move beyond what the media shoves down our throats. For me, it is very simple: Big Brother doesnt tell me what the hell I do with my body, and it shouldnt tell any women what to do with theirs, either.

The Supreme Court has ruled as of April 18, 2007 that these partial-birth abortions are liable to government sanctions because there is some possibility that the fetus could in fact be viable. Fetal viability aka when life begins is the en vogue reasoning these days for the restriction of abortion.

It is important to note a great sentence in the Roe concurrence with respect to fetal viability: We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are [sic] unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of mans knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

I do not think we have arrived at that day wherein we know exactly when life begins. Therefore it makes logical sense that there should be no reconsideration of Roe on the basis of fetal viability.

We, as a country, do not like abortions. But, we must understand that we cannot legislate when life begins when the sciences cannot give us an absolute answer. This is not a place where the court should be. The court should be protecting the citizens rights and not placating religious people.

There is an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution through the definition of liberty. This privacy includes anything in your home or in your body. As long as that fetus is in its mothers body, the government has zero rights to say or sanction anything against whatever the mother does.

Partial-birth abortion is an unfortunate culmination of usually tragic events. The government, the courts and the legislators �¢���� per the due process clause �¢���� have no right to intervene on this medical procedure.

> Comments