Nebraska Abortion Restrictions Threaten to Reinforce Pro-Abortion Position

At its elemental level, the abortion debate is not a battle between those who aim to restrict abortion and those who wish to extend its ubiquity, but a war between those who seek to defend life and those whose materialistic ideology is contrary to this goal. The strategy of this second camp is reliant on arbitrary standards to allow abortion.

Since Roe v. Wade, the standard of choice has been viability, which is a measure of the probability that a fetus will survive if external to the womb. This standard, however, has no bearing on the personhood of the fetus, and is akin to saying that one could be disposed of for the simple reason that one could not survive outside of the atmosphere—in short, an excellent example of an arbitrary standard. A recently passed law in Nebraska looks to challenge this standard, choosing instead to restrict abortion based on the ability of the fetus to sense pain. This law, the Abortion Pain Prevention Act, is based on the premise that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, and prohibits most abortions after this point. While this will move back the bar by about four weeks (within which only about 1 percent of all abortions are performed), it is as arbitrary as viability and a strange punishment for those with less-developed nervous systems.

What the Nebraska law gives us, then, is not a victory for the pro-life cause, but a victory for materialism. In our age of rampant judicial review, it is inevitable that this law will be challenged in court. If the case comes into existence, then there are basically only two outcomes possible. First, the law could be overturned; second, the law could be upheld. If overturned, all that would be achieved is additional cementing of Roe v. Wade and viability as the de facto standard. If upheld, all that is achieved is the birth of a new standard, which is really an equal victory, since arbitrary standards are exactly what are wanted by the materialist faction. Interestingly, the bill’s sponsor, Mike Flood, was quoted as saying “My bill does not center around viability, it creates a new standard.”

Sadly, in the rush to defeat the pro-abortion party, lawmakers in Nebraska have confused the actual struggle for the first battle I described, and, in doing so, have compromised the pro-life position, handing the pro-abortion party a victory. If we truly wish to win the war for life, we must always consider the “why” behind our efforts, and never—never—compromise.

For more information, I would encourage readers to investigate these articles:

http://www.slate.com/id/2250803

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/us/14abortion.html

http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=9947268&pid=77