Gianna Jessen - Abortion Survivor

Please check out Charmaine's post on Reasoned Audacity about Gianna Jessen. It provides a face to go along with a post I wrote earlier about "Pro-Choice" advocates and their denial of the reality of what an abortion really is.

For more on this and related topics, you can also check out http://www.prolifeblogs.com.

For another take on the issue, I go to Don, who posts to an email list I read regularly. He doesn't have a blog - so I have no link to provide. However, he made a post to the email list on this topic. I asked and he gave me permission to post his email here. What do you think?

I have been trying to figure out why Roe is so freaking important to so many people for years. To me, it was one issue, not all issues.This article made things more clear for me.The author of this article is Roger Pilon. He is vice president for legal affairs at the CatoInstitute...
the statute at issue in Roe was designed precisely to protect rights, the putative rights of the unborn. And so the basic substantive question was clear: When does the right to life begin? On that question, the Constitution is indeed silent -- mostly. Here's why. We would all agree, I hope, that if a doctor took the life of a baby one day after birth, it would be infanticide -- murder. Thus, states that protected older babies but not younger ones would doubtless be subject to equal protection challenges, at least, and would probably lose. But if taking the life of a baby one day after birth is murder, what is the difference if the act is performed one day before birth? It strains credulity to suppose there is any real difference. Well, what of two days before birth -- and so on down the line? It's impossible to draw a principled line at which to say, precisely, that this is where the right to life begins. The court's trimester taxonomy in Roe was its own invention, entitled to no more constitutional support than anyone else's opinion on the matter. And so we come to the jurisdictional question: Who decides? And on that the Constitution is not silent. Whether we believe that the right to life begins at conception or at some point over the next 270 days, we all believe, I hope, that it begins at some point along that line. We all agree, that is, that there is some point at which abortion amounts to murder. We just can't agree about where that point is. And so we're faced with a classic line-drawing problem, not unknown in other areas of the law, but here involving the criminal law and, therefore, the general police power -- the power that belongs, under the Constitution, to states. We come, then, to the heart of the matter. Just as states draw lines differently between murder and manslaughter, so too they should be expected to do so here. In fact, they were doing so when Roe was decided 32 years ago. If ever there were a case in which the court should have let the political process unfold naturally, this was it. Were the court to have done so, we would not have had over three decades of endless political and legal turmoil over this one decision, turmoil that has skewed and even poisoned every confirmation battle since. Indeed, no less than Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a similar point in her 1993 Madison Lecture at the New York University School of Law, two months before she was nominated for the high court. A more"measured" opinion, she said, might have spared the nation this pain. It would not be the end of the world, therefore, if the court were one day to overturn Roe, for the issue would simply return to the states. A conservative state like Utah might prohibit most abortions, but next door in Nevada we might see a liberal regime. On an issue about which reasonable people can have reasonable differences, that result should not surprise.
* * * So the issue is not abortion, Roe is a subversion of the Constitution- that things not mentioned in the Constitution are reserved to theStates. I think I have got it.