Pro-Lifers are Noble, but Gullible

I admire the goal of pro-life groups to end state-sanctioned infanticide in this country, so believe me when I say that I take no pleasure in pointing out that most pro-life supporters are extremely gullible. They seem to fall for just about any scam as long as it appears even remotely pro-life in principle.

We saw it happen when pro-lifers celebrated the purely symbolic victories of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, which is virtually unenforceable and prohibits the prosecution of murdering mothers, and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which contains a specific exemption for abortion providers. Pro-lifers were also duped into believing that the current administration cut off funding for organizations that promote abortion when in reality all it did was redirect money from the United Nations Population Fund to the pro-abortion United States Agency for International Development.

Most recently, pro-lifers have been cheering George W. Bush's first veto in his five-and-a-half year presidency. The bill he vetoed would have expanded federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Naturally, pro-lifers are patting him on the back, but they forget that it was Bush who forked over federal tax dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research in the first place.

When it comes to legal and constitutional considerations regarding pro-life issues, most pro-life supporters are as clueless as your average politician. Consider, for example, their reaction to Louisiana's recent abortion "ban."

Dorinda Bordlee and Nikolas Nikas, founders of Bioethics Defense Fund, a public-interest law firm "whose mission is to advance human rights from beginning to end," wrote an article praising the legislation as a critical step toward protecting pre-born children once and for all: "That's because the bill, La. S.B. 33 by Senator Nevers, has a Post-Roe Activation clause, meaning that the law goes into effect only when '[a]ny decision of the United States Supreme Court ... reverses, in whole or in part, Roe v. Wade, ... thereby restoring to the state of Louisiana the authority to prohibit abortion.'"

They are critical of those who have called this "feel-good legislation," but that's exactly what it is. It perpetuates the myth that the states are subject to unconstitutional federal court rulings. You see, the authority to prohibit abortion was never taken away from Louisiana—at least not in the legal or constitutional sense. It only seems that way because we have willingly ceded control of the country to a judicial oligarchy.

What pro-lifers—and Americans in general, for that matter—do not understand is that Roe v. Wade is not the law of the land; it never has been and never will be. Despite its name, the "Supreme" Court does not have the authority to enact legislation. That is a power reserved to Congress. Article I of the U.S. Constitution makes that perfectly clear. Legally and constitutionally, Roe v. Wade affects only the parties involved in that particular case.

I realize this may sound like blasphemy in a land ruled by black-robed tyrants, but judges are not gods. Unfortunately, pro-lifers like Bordlee and Nikas continue to buy into the notion that federal judges are above the Constitution and that only they can set things right. What we need are representatives in Congress with the courage to stand up for life, law, and liberty and impeach those judges who seek to legislate from the bench.

Oh, but that would require action on our part. We voters would actually have to exercise a little discretion at the ballot box. It's much easier to simply sit back, cross our fingers, and hope that the corrupt, bloated bureaucracy will one day correct itself.

In the meantime, we can all break out the Champagne and pretend we're making strides toward protecting innocent life. If ignorance is bliss, then we pro-lifers must be some of the happiest folks on the planet.