3.12.2006 | Faith in Roe v. Wade

South Dakota may be the perfect flyover state for the bi-coastal elites. It's rectangular; it's not got many tourist attractions that are of interest, at least not to those whose notion of "art" is the Blessed Virgin dipped in dung.

What South Dakota seems to have is a moral view of the world that differs markedly with many, if not most, other states. Gov. Mike Rounds, on signing S.D. House Bill 1215, also put his pen and his reputation behind these words of explanation (from Gov. Rounds' statement, which may be found here):

In the history of the world, the true test of a civilization is how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society. The sponsors and supporters of this bill believe that abortion is wrong because unborn children are the most vulnerable and most helpless persons in our society. I agree with them.

The Governor goes on to note that South Dakota has healthcare and other programs to help poor mothers-to-be to cope with their perhaps-unwanted children.

It is rare in public life to see such moral clarity in high, elected office. Skeptics will claim that the South Dakota law is merely a gambit, a ploy on the part of those to get Roe v. Wade on the Supreme Court's agenda. So that it can be struck down. Uh oh. One can almost hear the shrieks from the abortion-on-demand-up-until 8 months-and 29 days-point.

The New York Times, in a typical editorial today, warns us that the "threat to abortion rights has reached a new level." Then they go, with gusto, into the proverbial back-alley for a coat-hanger abortion. Without antiseptic, of course.

The Times is merely repeating what the abortion-on-demand crowd has been trumpeting for years: a woman's "right" to an abortion is more important than an unborn child's right to life. And, that sovereign states such as South Dakota are a "threat" to an unfettered "right" to an abortion.

I believe that God's plan includes creating an ensouled person at conception. And that an abortion kills a person, a helpless person. But there's no way I can prove this in a scientific sense. My fondest hope is that our society will agree, over time, to err on the side of my belief.

In the "am I a conservative hypocrite" bin, I have to put this: I have sinned myself, in the past. And have asked forgiveness: of God, of my spouse. I have repented, but, then, there's also this challenge for those who consider themselves pure limited-government conservatives (which I also do): how about taking care of all the children who will be born were there no abortions?

Many of these children will be born to unfit mothers; others to dysfunctional and poor families. We who would prevent abortion must also ensure that there are means to protect the newly-born children from disease and hunger. Would that this could be done solely through faith-based and other private charities. The harsh reality is that government intervention is probably the only agency that will truly work.

Our task as anti-abortion conservatives is to take care of the "least of these my brothers" (Matthew 25:40). It is simply not sufficient to preach against abortion, and, at the same time, preach against the evils of government -- if government is the real-world means by which to protect the least of our brothers.