Pro-life reasoning requires no invocation of God, no specific theology, and no imposition of beliefs. Nor does articulating a coherent rational argument fail to show tolerance or respect for competing positions--even intellectually incoherent positions like Amnesty International's. And one has to wonder if Amnesty International can really think petitions for abortion rights amount to authentic care for women, while nuns like the Sisters of Life who take in and house pregnant women are merely turning a blind eye.
The pro-life community in the United States has always had genuine admiration for Amnesty International, particularly as the organization kept itself neutral in the abortion debates. But if it now insists on holding what pro-lifers see as a fundamentally flawed view of human rights, pro-lifers' trust in its other work will decline--indeed, it already has. Amnesty International is deluding itself if it thinks that this new support for an unlimited abortion license does not undermine the foundations of human rights and the broad coalition of support the organization once enjoyed.
Here are links to the transcripts and the video of a panel discussion regarding Gonzales v. Carhart, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and the future of abortion jurisprudence. The panel included Eve Gartner, Senior Staff Attorney, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Marcia Greenberger, Founder and Co-President, National Women's Law Center, Cathy Cleaver Ruse, Senior Fellow for Legal Studies, Family Research Council and M. Edward Whelan III, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center.
I think my favorite part is when Ed Whelan discusses how not a single as-applied challenge to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act has been filed since the decision.
The court has said, bring your as-applied challenges. It's been two months; it's remarkable that not a single as-applied challenge has been filed by the abortion litigation juggernaut that manages to get into courts throughout the country to prevent laws from ever taking place, a juggernaut funded by the wealthiest foundations in the country with access to the top legal talent, pro bono, from major law firms throughout the country.
Not a single action has been filed. I don't know why that is. Perhaps it's because this concern over women's health was just an excuse to try to get the entire ban invalidated, and when that failed, no concern remains for these hypothetical situations. Perhaps they know they can't prove it. Perhaps they see some political advantage in pretending that Gonzales v. Carhart puts a woman in the situation of filing for a TRO [temporary restraining order] while she's suffering a hemorrhage. Whatever it is, it's remarkable that those cases haven't been brought, and some attention really needs to be focused on that.
Deepali Gaur Singh discusses some of the consequences sex selection abortion and infanticide has had on India at the Reproductive Health Reality Check blog including the buying and leasing of wives and brothers sharing wives. Creepy stuff.