Another Backdoor Attempt

I have to hand it to the anti-choice forces. They are persistent and creative. For those who might have missed it, in February, 2009, the North Dakota state house passed a bill defining human life as beginning at conception. Similar efforts are underway in Maryland as well. But these bills often fail to pass both houses of a state legislature or they're overturned on appeal. So the defense attorneys for Scott Roeder, the man convicted yesterday (1/29/10) of murdering Dr. George Tiller, decided to use that old tactic they love to scream about liberals using: judicial activism.

We interrupt this story with some important facts regarding judicial activism. It is the sworn duty of every single judge in this country to uphold, first and foremost, the laws of the US Constitution and then, secondarily, the laws of their own state, country, district, etc. If a judge or panel of judges determines that a law violates the US Constitution, it is their sworn duty to throw out that law no matter how popular the law may be among the citizenry. This is a very important concept to get because virtually every single case in which the radical religious right has screamed "Judicial activism!" is, in reality, a case of the judge(s) throwing out a law that is determined to be in violation of the US Constitution. In other words, what the radical religious right defines as "judicial activism" is really nothing more than a judge doing his/her job. Judicial activism is when a group attempts to use the courts to change laws that are already in existence. We now return you to your regularly scheduled story.

Scott Roeder's "defense" for killing Dr. Tiller was that it was necessary to save the "lives" of the "children" Dr. Tiller was "murdering" through providing abortions. (Dr. Tiller was one of the few doctors left in the country who performed late term abortions as well.) This defense would have required that the judge in the case define human life as beginning at conception, otherwise Roeder's defense made no sense. This defense was an attempt to use judicial activism to push through a religious agenda on the rest of the country. I realize that not all people who are anti-choice are anti-choice because of religion, but Scott Roeder is and that's who this case is about and that's who is trying to force others to live according to his personal beliefs.

There are two points at which there can be no doubt that a new human life has been created: when the newborn baby draws its first breath or when it is outside the womb, whichever comes first. Every other definition of when life begins relies on one's personal beliefs with respect to God, a soul, the afterlife, etc. Under the first amendment, these personal beliefs are protected and cannot be infringed upon. Therefore, any laws that give any rights/personhood status to the unborn are unconstitutional (although they're very popular because they play heavily on the emotions and judges are very loathe to overturn such laws since most of them are elected officials. But that's another story altogether.)

For Roeder's defense to work, the judge would have had to concede that human life begins at conception which may have forced the jurors to adhere to a definition of when human life begins that may have violated their own personal beliefs. Therefore, Roeder's bid to use the "necessity" defense was correctly denied. And given the fact that he admitted he had killed Dr. Tiller, the fact that the jury deliberated only 37 minutes isn't really a surprise. Nor is that fact that he was convicted of the charges against him.

I know that Kansas is the heartland of America. That the radical religious right's power is very strong in Kansas and that the issue of abortion is very hotly debated. Anti-choice forces far outweigh pro-choice forces in America's breadbasket. So I applaud the jurors in this case for doing what was required of them: voting for conviction according to the law and not their own personal convictions.

Such attempts at outlawing abortion without passing a law to outlaw abortion are not over. Unfortunately, most people don't realize the dangers of declaring that life begins at conception or what effect that would have on women in this country. I wrote an article called "An Effective End to Abortion" many years ago and, sadly, the predictions I made in that article are coming true with respect to viability and efforts to declare life begins at conception. If you'd like to read the article, it's linked below. For now, however, it's important that we're vigilant of the anti-choice's efforts to use judicial activism to push through their agenda. The very fabric of our society and our nation's continued existence as a constitutional republic depend on stopping these attempts before they become law and/or legal precedent.