States can't ban partial-birth abortions, the Supreme Court has essentially decided. But what about after-birth abortions? What if, in the course of an abortion (or under any other circumstances, for that matter) an infant is fully delivered from its mother's body and exhibits one or more basic signs of life: breathing, heartbeat, or voluntary muscle movement? Perhaps the infant is "viable"; perhaps it isn't. But either way, can a doctor -- at the behest of the parents or on his own -- legally kill this infant? Can he give it a lethal injection? Throw it in a dumpster? Bang it over the head with a hammer? You wouldn't think so. You'd think a human being, born alive in the United States, should have certain bedrock legal rights. And you'd think no one would dare interfere with those rights.
But you'd be wrong. The notorious Princeton University "bioethicist" Peter Singer, for example, believes that parents should enjoy a one-month window of opportunity to destroy unhealthy newborn babies. And though they would probably not put it quite that way, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League has recently jumped on the infanticide bandwagon, too.
At issue is the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act," a bill proposed by Florida representative Charles Canady that would accord fully delivered living babies the status of "persons" under federal law. NARAL opposes the legislation -- as an "anti-choice" assault on Roe v. Wade. Canady's legislation regulates no method of abortion or medical treatment in the slightest, of course. But that's not good enough for NARAL. An unhealthy and unwanted baby is merely and always an unviable "fetus," the organization argues in a press release issued July 20. And Roe, NARAL further contends, prohibits any restriction on a mother's right to kill this fetus. Even after it's been born and started to breathe.
Unbelievable.
On July 26, THE SCRAPBOOK is pleased to report, the House Judiciary Committee rejected NARAL's views, and approved the Canady bill by an overwhelming vote of 22-1. Joining NARAL in lonely opposition to the measure was North Carolina's Melvin Watt. In the November presidential election, Watt will no doubt be voting for Al Gore.