I’m a lawyer who has read Roe v. Wade. Though it has been a while my recollection is that the core of the opinion turns on precisely the issue the article identifies. The power to regulate, it is held, kicks in once there is a life to protect, and not before. To this extent the opinion starts from the premise that government cannot interfere in our lives unless we are doing some real harm to another, which is a good fundamental principle that would help us a great deal if it were followed more broadly. Anyway, absent scientific proof of when life starts the court used viability as the trigger for regulatory power. Agree or disagree with that conclusion. But the question is and always has been about when human life starts. No one is pro-murder. We just don’t agree on whether early term abortion is, in fact, murder; and, perhaps for some, on whether the government or the individual has the burden of proof on that thresshold question. We must realize that we will never agree on these issues. People of faith believe life begins at conception and so find it difficult if not impossible to leave this to individual conscience. People who reject that belief, likewise, find it difficult if not impossible to accept having the religious beliefs of others imposed on all. This is why most of the comments here wisely counsel that we put these issues aside while we try to save our Country. If we ever restore something resembling freedom for the born, we may resume our insoluble quarrel about the unborn.
