Family Restoration is Hindered by Abortion

Families thrive on protecting each other. There is simply nothing like a mom protecting her children, or a man protecting his wife, or a brother or sister standing up for each other. Family protection is a natural fact of life. This reality may be why so many Americans find abortion completely counter-intuitive. By nature abortion requires and commends a mother (and often a father) who have chosen not to protect their own child. Indeed, strong families are hindered by abortion, and abortion does not accomplish family restoration.

Maybe this is why states like Nebraska continue to regulate abortion toward minimal usage. Recently that state adopted a law banning most abortion 20 weeks after conception or later on the theory that a fetus, or the child, has the capacity to feel pain. The law, which appears almost certain to set off not only scientific, but legal debates, is the first in the nation to restrict abortions on the basis of fetal pain. You can read the New York Times article discussing it here.

Oklahoma recently adopted a law that prohibits abortion based on sex selection. Many states limit late term abortions, or partial birth abortions, and even more communities are not welcoming new Planned Parenthood facilities knowing that abortions are then encouraged in the neighborhoods where the facilities are based. These are important considerations for families, and communities that desire to be strengthened by the families they incentivize.

Some argue that new state laws and community awareness could undermine landmark abortion cases which established the right as constitutionally protected (see article, "New Abortion Law in Nebraska on Fetal Pain Could Weaken Roe v. Wade Further"). Such jurisprudence could essentially reveal that abortion does not strengthen America, because it does not strengthen American families – rather it hinders and harms families, and their restoration.

Now Justice Stephens who currently sits on the United States Supreme Court has announced his pending retirement, President Obama has made known his new nominee, Judge Diane Wood. Recently writing for the Seventh Circuit, she effectively reversed the jurisprudence of the High Court and renewed RICO claims against pro-life organizations and individuals who object to abortion by ordering a federal district court to “determine whether the four predicate acts involving ‘acts or threats of physical violence to any person or property’ are sufficient to support the nationwide injunction that it imposed.” NOW, Inc. v. Scheidler, 91 Fed.Appx. 510, 513 (2004).

In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case for a third time on the merits. In a full reversal of the Seventh Circuit (and in an opinion this time joined by Justice Stevens) the Court voted 8-0 that “Congress did not intend to create a free-standing physical violence offense” under the relevant law. To prevent any more reruns, the Court specifically remanded the case for “entry of judgment for” the pro-lifers. Scheidler v. NOW, 547 U.S. 9 (2006).

In sum, pro-lifers and their families have ample grounds for opposing Diane Wood as a Supreme Court nominee. In addition to her votes to strike down pro-life legislation such as partial birth abortion bans and an informed consent law, her rulings in NOW v. Scheidler reveal her extreme ideological bias in any matter touching on the issue of abortion.

States understand that abortion does not foster stability strengthen families, or strengthen the state government. The Supreme Court of the United States might just begin to understand that too, unless nominees like Judge Wood are appointed. Indeed, family restoration is hindered by abortion because families thrive on protecting each other.