IF WOMBS HAD WINDOWS, By Tom Wacaster

Posted on Updated on

 One of our two  precious great grandchildren, born September 4, 2011.

If Wombs Had Windows

I cannot remember the first time I heard the expression, “If wombs had windows, abortions would immediately cease.” Since the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973, more than 45,000,000 babies have been aborted. The opponents of abortion have waged an unending battle with those who would undermine the sanctity of life. With increased medical technology comes the very real possibility that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned, and the nightmare of infanticide will end.

Most of us have never taken the time to review the records of Roe vs. Wade, and were it not for a small reference to it in a book I am now reading, I may never have come across this little bit of information relative to this subject. But first, a little background. In 1970, a pregnant woman in Dallas sought an abortion. It was denied under an 1854 Texas law denying abortions except when the mother’s life was at stake. She fought the law, using the pseudonym “Jane Roe.” The Supreme Court heard her case twice.

In 1973, the Court announced its 7-2 vote to strike down the Texas law on the grounds that the 14th Amendment protects a woman’s right to choice in the matter and the 9th Amendment reserves to the people all rights not specifically restricted. The argument for the defense (i.e., the state of Texas) argued that the state of Texas had an interest in protecting the life of an unborn child after a certain point, which was determined to be the first trimester. Sarah Weddington was the counsel of “Jane Roe,” and Jay Floyd and Robert Flowers were lawyers on the staff of the attorney general of Texas.

Since the Supreme Court’s decision on that fateful day in 1973, women in America, with the consent of and advice from their doctors, have been instrumental in murdering millions of unborn children.

Permit me, now, to provide you with a couple of statements from the transcript of the lengthy court session that led to the final decision on the part of the Supreme Court. This little tidbit comes from a book entitled, “Eyewitnesses to America,” edited by David Colbert. On December 13, 1971, Counselor for the defense, Sarah Weddington argued: “We feel that because of the impact on the woman, this certainly, inasfar [sic] as there are any rights which are fundamental, is a matter which is of fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue or to terminate her pregnancy.” Lawyers for the State of Texas rightly responded: “I think she makes her choice prior to the time she becomes pregnant. That is the time of the choice. Once a child is born, a woman no longer has a choice, and I think pregnancy may terminate that choice. We say there is life from the moment of impregnation.” Justice Thurgood Marshall responded: “And do you have any scientific data to support that?”

Evidently Jay Floyd, lawyer for the State, did not present sufficient or satisfying “scientific data,”and as a consequence, “the rest is history,” as they say. But let us now tell you “the rest of the story.” In late 1972, only three months before the final decision regarding Roe vs. Wade, the following argument took place between the “Court” and Weddington (remember, Sarah Weddington was the Counselor for Jane Roe, the woman seeking the abortion).

Weddington: “The Court has in the past held that it is the right of the parents to determine whether or not they will send their child to private school; whether or not their children will be taught foreign languages; whether or not they will have offspring. So there is a great body of cases, decided by this Court, in the areas of marriage, sex, contraception, procreation, childbearing, and education, which says that there are certain things that are so much a part of the individual concern that they should be left to the determination of the individual. If the state could show that the fetus was a person under the Fourteenth Amendment, or under some other amendment or part of the Constitution, then the state would have compelling interest, which in some instances can outweigh a fundamental right.” Now, dear reader, did you catch that? If the state could show that the fetus was a person, then the state’s interest (in this case, protecting the right of the unborn child) would outweigh the “fundamental right” of the mother!

The response of the Court to Weddington’s remark will become a crucial issue when the Supreme Court convenes this year to hear yet another case regarding abortion. Please consider these words from the Court made more than 36 years ago: Court to Weddington: “If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, you would have an impossible case here, would you not?” To which Sarah Weddington admitted, “I would have a very difficult case.” The Court to Flowers: “And the basic constitutional question, initially, is whether or not an unborn fetus is a person, isn’t it?” Robert Flowers: (lawyer for the State of Texas): “Yes, and entitled to the constitutional protections.” Court: “That’s critical to this case, is it not?” Flowers: “Yes sir, it is. I think that here is exactly what we’re facing in this case: Is the life of this unborn fetus paramount over the woman’s right to determine whether or not she shall bear a child? This Court has been diligent in protecting the rights of the minorities, and, gentlemen, we say that this is a minority, a silent minority, the true silent minority. Who is speaking for these children? Where is the counsel for those unborn children, whose life is being taken? Where is the safeguard of the right to trial by jury? Are we to place this power in the hands of a mother, in a doctor? What would keep a legislator, under this grounds, from deciding who else might or might not be a human being, or might not be a person?”

With the medical technology now available it can be clearly established that from the point of conception there is sentient life in the womb. We can now look into the womb with cameras and sound equipment, and watch that precious infant as he/she breathes, moves, laughs and cries.

Maybe our prayers will be heard by God, and those men now sitting on the bench of the highest court in the land will realize that life does begin at conception. Let us pray that those men will live up to their God-given responsibility, and pass down a decision that is in accord with God’s will. Oh yes, “If wombs had windows!”

By Tom Wacaster    Note:  I so appreciate Tom’s writings on this very timely and urgent topic. Thank  you Tom.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s