>In 2003, the Texas Legislature passed a Prenatal Protection Act, which named the unborn children of Texas individuals from fertilization to natural death. Texas law also calls the “individual” a “person.” With the world the way it is after Roe versus Wade, and because most of us have compassion for a woman who believes she doesn’t have a real choice, we had to make exceptions for the decisions of the mother, including abortion and – even when the child is not in her womb – for those she empowers, such as doctors and techs at in vitro fertilization clinics.
However, the law in Texas protects a woman and her child against some one else taking the life of her child against her wishes. We will also punish the murderer when we can’t protect them.
The man was dating two women when one became pregnant. He told the other woman that he would “take care of it,” and then shot the mother of his child 3 times with a shotgun, once in the face.The jury determined that he knew the woman was pregnant and that he intended to kill them both. He was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The Court decision plainly states:
“By expressly defining capital murder such that one of the victims may be any unborn child from fertilization throughout all stages of gestation, the statute leaves no ambiguity as to what conduct is proscribed. In particular, the plain language of the statute prohibits the intentional or knowing killing of any unborn human, regardless of age. No ordinary person reading the statute would have any doubt as to whether it encompasses victims at all stages of gestation.”
We know that violence often begins when a woman is pregnant and that 25% to 30% of deaths during pregnancy are due to homicide, usually at the hands of the father of the child.
I hope that this Court opinion and the original law will save lives. I wish for a day when no one is in danger of being intentionally killed by someone else, much less a loved one. And I hope that the publicity about this law will cause everyone – the person about to get behind the wheel after drinking as well as the abusive husband or boyfriend, to consider the risk of harming a mother too dangerous to even think about.
I believe we are much more likely to overturn Roe now than we have been at any time since 1973, while still ending up with restrictions in at least as many States as we had then. And I believe that the reason why this is so is because more than half of our citizens are unhappy with elective intentional abortion on demand as it is practiced in too many States today.
I also believe that a pro-life Congress could restrict the Courts from interfering with the States’ legislative actions on abortion tomorrow, on the grounds that it’s obvious that the unborn are persons.
For one thing, we have 4-D ultrasounds now and babies born as young as 20 weeks go home healthy.
In addition, many minds were changed – are still being changed – by the debate over partial birth abortion.
However, the reality is that there is zero chance of getting a Human Life Amendment through the Senate, much less getting 2/3 of the States to ratify it if the States themselves are not already doing it. (Please read up on how the 13th and 14th were ratified: the Legislators from the Southern States were not allowed to participate.)
Far too many men and women think of abortion as insurance against their bad decisions, rather than one more (awful) bad decision.
There are still too many people who think rape and incest are appropriate reasons in themselves for an abortion. They haven’t heard how many women decide to carry their children to term after rape or considered the very real humanity of the unborn child, who shouldn’t be punished for his father’s crime.
But we do have a chance at returning the choice to the States where the majority would restrict abortion except to save the life of the mother. And each person that we teach to think of the unborn child as a person, the closer we get to ending elective intentional abortion.