Strengthening the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. A Victory for Pro-Lifers?

Now that retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is gone and conservative Justice Samuel Alito has taken her place, the fate of a woman's right to choose late term abortions hangs precariously in the balance. Most recently, the Supreme Court justices by a vote of 5 to 4 imposed a ban on partial birth abortion during the last trimester of pregnancy. This made a Nebraska law enacted in 2000 invalid, primarily because no medical exception language was included in that case's law, but this further lends support to Bush's 2003 partial-birth abortion ban legislation. The Supreme Court here was attempting to more accurately define partial birth abortions and declare that this kind of procedure is never a necessary medical procedure which thereby eliminates any health exceptions. This is quite different from any legislation we have seen in the past.

The original case entitled Gonzales v. Carhart, 05-380, (and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood ) hoped that the Supreme Court would uphold earlier precedence that this type of abortion would continue. However, the mindset of those who hold office in the highest court in the land has now changed and we can now see how those in judicial authority view the Constitutional extent of so-called abortion rights.

What is most telling is that the rights of the fetus are now being considered. With so many premature babies surviving outside the womb as a result of medical technology, plus the vast new laws on the books in personal injury claims which protect the rights of not only pregnant mothers but their unborn children as well, all courts must now reconsider the viability of even a fetus' life, if any, such a late-term abortion might be terminating and in what manner. Planned Parenthood has always argued that the mother's health might be imperiled if such procedures were not allowed and that mothers should have the right to choose this type of abortion if they feel their own lives are at risk. It will be interesting to see how the various states react, armed with these new challenges to 30-year-old laws, especially with regard to their own new parental notification laws going before the courts such as in Oregon State.

I am glad I am not a physician or Congressional judge or pregnant mother having to make these kinds of decisions. However, I am a theologian and this is what I know.

The Biblical passage of Jeremiah 1:4-5 states that God knows us while we are yet in the womb:

"Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.'"

Many people ask the question, does this mean God knows us before we are even conceived? Does this passage give justification to the understanding that life occurs before physical birth or is the author referring to simply a spiritual life?

Many Christians connect this passage to the story of the unborn John the Baptist who "leapt in the womb" of Elizabeth, cousin to Mary the mother of our Lord Jesus, during a visit when they were both pregnant. I believe the two citations are arguably justifiable examples of why we should support the sanctity of life for the unborn. However, the Jeremiah passage introduces another equation to the mystery, that the Lord "knew" us EVEN BEFORE conception. I believe that we can look at the statement biologically and metaphysically.

First, now that we understand DNA and the structure of blood cells more accurately, it is not a far stretch to say that heredity and genes play a large part in the makeup of who we are as people. Scientists have discovered that not only eye and hair color are predetermined, but also many mutations and diseases as well as innate talents such as a skill for music and art. Environment and self-determination are important, but the biological DNA or design of a person are inescapable. Heredity as passed down from one generation to the next does play a very important role, thus we too can "know" the baby in a sense while it is still in the womb.

Second, the reality of time is simply a concept of our thoughts. There is no future or past in reality, only potential future or remembered past as concepts in our own minds. We only know time through observing objects in time, for example, being and not being in a certain place in time. If you doubt this, you can see the relativity of time by traveling across several time zones. We can conceive of time any way we wish, but we cannot exist without it in our experience.

Time and space do not apply to metaphysical beings such as angels or God, who exist outside our physical or mental boundaries and constraints. A being not yet in existence can have no being in reality, however, God is omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all seeing) and omnipresent (everywhere at all times and places) and is why the Spirit of God can prophesy our future and know our past with accuracy. I do not necessarily believe God fore-ordains the future (we do have free will after all), but I do believe God knows all possible alternatives taken and not taken. If we were in fact "predestined", then God would be the keeper of our destiny. Whether a fetus (which does grow and thus has some kind of life to it) holds the right to live outside the womb as well as in it would be a decision best held by God.

If God" knows" us before forming us in the womb, this would also include all those precious souls who are lost before child-birth or shortly after any partial-birth abortion. I believe God is more concerned with our spirits or souls than merely the body, although our bodies are considered the temple of the Holy Spirit too. Since the form and nature of our being depends on many factors, not just any outward final physical appearance, it is logically possible for God to have knowledge of one's essence before conception. Whether the courts are correct in determining that such "essence" holds any legal or Constitutional rights will be an interesting debate to follow in the years to come.