As the 45th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions approaches, we pause to consider how much we’ve progressed in the pursuit to abolish the killing of preborn children in the United States.
Not at all.
Sure, hundreds of state regulations have been enacted to stifle a mother’s pursuit of ending her preborn child’s life. Laws regulating the methods of killing have been passed. Many more are still being drafted in the name of “saving as many lives as we can.” And therein lies the heart of the problem—a derailment of principle.
When the Supreme Court decisions decriminalizing abortion were fresh headlines, pro-life groups were unified in restoring protection for the preborn. And when things didn’t go as planned, the tactics shifted. Members of Congress, in an attempt to propose a Constitutional amendment protecting preborn babies, introduced a life-of-the-mother exception. The Archbishop of Boston wasn’t going to have any of it.
THIS was the principle of the pro-life movement in its infancy. No exceptions. No regulations. Then politics entered, and principle was dumped for pragmatism. Instead of doing the right thing, the pro-life principle was scrapped for doing the practical thing.
Do you think we would have had 40 plus years of abortion-on-demand had the pro-life movement stood firm with Cardinal Medeiros' position? Click on the image above and post your comment. And if you agree with the Cardinal’s position, please share the image as well.