The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Dems to display extremism in blocking vote on abortion

- George F. Will He writes for the Washington Post.

What would America’s abortion policy be if the number of months in the gestation of a human infant were a prime number — say, seven or eleven? This thought experiment is germane to why the abortion issue has been politicall­y toxic, and points to a path toward a less bitter debate. The House of Representa­tives has for a third time stepped onto this path. Senate Democrats will, for a third time, block this path when Majority Leader Mitch McConnell brings the House bill to the floor, allowing Democrats to demonstrat­e their extremism and aversion to bipartisan compromise.

Abortion, which supposedly is the archetypal issue that confounds efforts at compromise, has for two generation­s — since the Supreme Court seized custody of the issue in 1973 — damaged political civility.

Pro-abortion absolutist­s — meaning those completely content with the post-1973 regime of essentiall­y unrestrict­ed abortion-on-demand at any point in pregnancy — are disproport­ionately Democrats who, they say, constitute the Party of Science. They are aghast that the Department of Health and Human Services now refers to protecting people at “every stage of life, beginning at conception.” This, however, is elementary biology, not abstruse theology: Something living begins then — this is why it is called conception. And absent a natural malfunctio­n or intentiona­l interventi­on (abortion), conception results in a human birth.

In 1973, the court decreed — without basis in the Constituti­on’s text, structure or history, or in embryology or other science — a trimester policy. It postulated, without a scintilla of reasoning, moral and constituti­onal significan­ce in the banal convenienc­e that nine is divisible by three. The court decided that the right to abortion becomes a trifle less than absolute when the fetus reaches viability, meaning the ability to survive outside the womb. The court stipulated that viability arrived at 24 to 28 weeks.

On Oct. 3, the House passed (237-189) the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act banning abortions after the 20th week. The act’s suppositio­n is that by then the fetus will feel pain when experienci­ng the violence of being aborted, and that this matters. Of course, pro-abortion absolutist­s consider the phrase “unborn child” oxymoronic, believing that from conception until the instant of delivery, the preborn infant is mere “fetal material,” as devoid of moral significan­ce as would be a tumor in the mother.

Only seven nations allow unrestrict­ed abortion after 20 weeks. Most European nations restrict abortions by at least week 13. France and Germany are very restrictiv­e after 12, Sweden after 18.

In 1973, the court bizarrely called the fetus “potential life”; it is, of course, undeniably alive and biological­ly human. A large American majority is undogmatic about the question of when the living thing that begins at conception should be held to acquire personhood protectabl­e by law. This majority’s commonsens­ical, prudently imprecise, split-the-difference answer is: not at conception but well before completed gestation. Hence this majority, its vocabulary provided by the court’s arbitrary jurisprude­nce, thinks first-trimester abortions should be legal. After which, approximat­ely a two-thirds majority supports restrictin­g abortions.

When — the sooner the better — the House bill comes to the Senate floor, Democrats will prevent a vote on it. This will be a tutorial on the actual extremists in our cultural conflicts.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States