Continue to pray for a culture of life and hope

April 26, 2007

My dear friends in Christ,

For two generations, the "culture of death" has flourished in our country. On rare occasions, our staunch opposition to it has been politically effective. Last Wednesday was one of those, when the federal Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Congress's 2003 ban on partial-birth abortions was indeed constitutional and could be enforced.

This ruling is an important moment in our battle for the sanctity of every life from natural conception to natural death. When Roe vs. Wade first invented the "right" to an abortion, the majority decision implied that states could reasonably regulate this right, as we do every right we exercise. But in fact, virtually every attempt to regulate abortion has foundered; repeatedly, both federal and state Supreme Courts found these attempts unconstitutional.

The reason for this is quite clear. The argument in support of the "right to choose" is that the autonomy of the individual (in this case the mother) must be respected beyond that of the state. The interest of the state in the health of all its people, including the unborn, is therefore trumped by the individual will. If this is true, then it follows that almost any regulation of the exercise of that "right" becomes restrictive, and therefore burdensome, and therefore unconstitutional.

There are two massive holes in this argument, that our society has been studiously ignoring or vociferously denying since 1973. First, no other individual right operates this way. Every right we exercise is legitimately regulated by the state, precisely in order to preserve the common good. My right to own the car I desire is limited by several things, not least of which is the natural right of the car dealer to expect a reasonable profit on my purchase of the car. My right to live where I want is limited by many things, including, say, zoning laws.

The right to choose whether or not to have a child is not limited by the state in the sense that the state may force one to have or not to have a child; but it is clearly limited by the reality of pregnancy. This is generally the result of the autonomous choice of the mother; the state has not operated in such a way as to result in this woman's being pregnant; and therefore it should not be any more burdensome to regulate the "right" to abortion than it is to regulate the right to own which car or which house I desire to own.

Second, the child is a human person from the moment of conception. The child has natural rights on exactly the same basis as the mother's autonomy: namely, human personhood. The most basic of natural rights is the right to life. The right of the mother to choose her actions freely is bounded by the child's right to life in exactly the same way as it is bounded by anyone else's right to life. This also is not any more burdensome a regulation than any other civil law.

Even under the regime of Roe vs. Wade, therefore, it is entirely reasonable that the natural rights of the mother (autonomy) be balanced by the state against the natural rights of the child (life). And so, I think it is highly significant that the Supreme Court has decided against partial-birth abortion. For only the second time since 1973, the duty of the state to regulate the exercise of an individual right pertaining to abortion is upheld as constitutional.

Of course, this Supreme Court decision does not fully solve the problems raised by unlimited autonomy of the mother in abortion law. Nor does it significantly address the second problem with Roe vs. Wade, the personhood of the child. As long as our society and its laws continue to deny the humanity of unborn children, then the inhuman "right" to an abortion will remain, no matter how closely regulated it might be.

Our Lord Jesus Christ does not leave us in any doubt about the humanity of the unborn, nor about the immorality of abortion. "You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb" (Ps 139:13). "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you" (Jer 1:5). "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment. But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment..." (Mt 5:21-2). Both the Old and New Testaments assert most clearly that God our Creator loves us from the moment of our creation; we cannot even come to be, unless He loves us first.

I want to affirm once again the importance of being Pro-life. I gladly support the many Pro-life groups in our parishes and Diocese. Working to end the horror of abortion is often lonely and exhausting work. Please do not lose hope. I support you and pray for you every day.

My dear friends, I ask you to continue to pray and work for the "culture of life and hope." Abortion is only one issue where our faith leads us to oppose the popular views of our age; but it is fundamental, because the right to life is the basis for all other rights. We cannot hope to welcome the stranger, be just to the poor, and feed the hungry, if we continue to deny the very humanity of the most innocent and defenseless among us. In denying their humanity, we deny Christ.

May our Lord Jesus Christ preserve us all in faith, in spirit and in truth, until the day of His return.

Your brother in Christ,

Most Reverend R. Walker Nickless
Bishop of Sioux City