|
Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?
A Sermon Given
by Rev. Roger Fritts
on January 19, 2003
at Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church
Bethesda, Maryland
I remember where I was when I heard about the Supreme Court decision on
abortion. I was twenty two years old, and a senior at Arizona State
University. About 10:30 that morning I heard the news. A friend told me, as we
stood on the sidewalk in front of the Social Science building. The students I
talked with at the university that day had a feeling of excitement and
disbelief. Something no one really believed could happen, the legalization of
abortion in the United States, had happened.
Before 1973 researchers estimated that almost 25 percent of the woman in
America had one or more induced illegal abortion by the age of forty-five.
Researchers estimated that more than half the doctors in America preformed
illegal abortions for friends, relatives and other patients.
Then on January 22, 1973, nine men in Washington announced their decision
regarding two cases that had come before them.
Jane Roe has wanted an abortion in Dallas, Texas. She was a 21-year-old
single woman, who was not ready to start a family and could not afford to
travel out of the country.
Mary Doe has requested an abortion in Atlanta, Georgia. She was a
22-year-old married woman who had spent time in a mental hospital and could
not afford to support her other three children.
These two cases, Roe versus Wade and Doe versus Bolton,
changed the balance of power in the fight over abortion.
The nine justices had debated for fourteen months before reaching a
decision. Their debate was a miniature version of the larger debate going on
across the country. The Justices’s arguments represent the broad spectrum of
positions.
William Douglas, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall argued strongly in
favor of striking down the abortion laws because the laws violated the rights
of women. They told their colleagues:
If the right to privacy means anything, it is the right of the
individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted government
intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision
whether to bear or not to bear a child.
Justices Douglas, Brennan and Marshall took most seriously the rights of
women.
Potter Stewart and Harry Blackmun argued in favor of striking down the
abortion laws because the laws violated the rights of doctors. They told their
colleagues:
Anti abortion laws inhibited doctors’ abilities to exercise their best
judgment. Since state-licensed doctors are professionals, the laws should
not interfere with their judgment on behalf of their patients.
Justice Stewart and Blackmun took most seriously the right of doctors.
Lewis Powell argued in favor of striking down the abortion laws because the
laws sought to legislate what Powell believed was essentially a religious and
not a legal question. Justice Powell told his colleagues:
In these moral issues each person must be free to follow their own
judgment and should not have a judgment imposed on them by force of law.
Justice Powell took most seriously each person’s right of freedom of
religion.
Byron White argued in favor of keeping the abortion laws because the fetus
was a living being. Byron White told his colleagues:
I have doubts about allowing a woman to get rid of an unwanted child on a
"whim" or out of "caprice." The Court should not value the convenience of
the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the
life or potential life that she carries.
Justice White took most seriously the rights of the fetus.
William Rehnquist argued in favor of keeping the abortion laws because the
federal court should stay out of areas not specifically mentioned in the
constitution. William Rehnquist told his colleagues:
The constitutional right to privacy is based in the Fourteenth Amendment
adopted in 1868. At that time at least thirty-six states or territories had
laws on the books limiting abortions. It does not appear that the framers of
the Fourteenth Amendment intended to bar the states from regulating
abortions. The federal court should not interfere with states’ prerogatives.
Justice Rehnquist took most seriously the rights of individual states.
Warren Burger consistently argued in favor of keeping the abortion laws
during the debate. However, three days before the court was to release the
final decision, Burger decided, on narrow grounds, to vote to strike the two
laws before the Court. Warren Burger told his colleagues:
The Texas law should be struck because it does not permit abortions in
instances of rape or incest. The Georgia law should be struck because of the
complex steps in the law requiring hospital board certification.
Justice Burger took most seriously the particular details of the two laws
before the court.
The combination of views resulted in a decision supported by seven of the
nine justices. This decision had three specific elements:
- In the first three months of pregnancy women are free to have an
abortion.
- In the second three months of pregnancy state governments can restrict
abortions, only if the abortion threatens the mother’s health.
- In the last three months of pregnancy state governments can outlaw
abortion, unless an abortion is necessary to preserve the health of the
mother.
Under the Court’s decision, medical centers are not forced to give
abortions, doctors are not forced to do abortions, and women are not forced to
have abortions. Everyone can live their lives in keeping with their personal
beliefs. Still, the controversy has raged on in the thirty years since the
decision.
I understand why some people strongly oppose abortions. They feel deeply
that a fetus is a human life and they should protect that life from
destruction. Simultaneously, I understand the desire of women to be able to
choose motherhood and their desire to have control over their own bodies.
I believe we must somehow create a balance between the rights of a woman
and the rights of a fetus. In 1973 the majority of the Court reasoned that we
should give rights to the fetus which increase gradually as the fetus matures.
At the beginning of the pregnancy the rights of the woman are more important
than the rights of the fetus. However, as the fetus develops its right to life
grows and stronger and stronger reasons are required to justify abortion. Near
the end of the pregnancy, only the most serious claim that the pregnancy
endangers a woman’s life, can justify the destruction of the fetus.
Those who see only the rights of the fetus will not be satisfied with any
policy that takes into consideration the rights of the woman. Those who see
only the rights of the woman will not be satisfied with any policy that takes
into consideration the rights of the fetus.
Personally, I believe the court’s 1973 decision is reasonable and
responsible. It takes into account both the rights of the fetus and the woman.
I do not view the end of a pregnancy lightly. The fetus is not a human person,
but it is alive. Nevertheless, I believe abortion is sometimes the right
decision.
Many of us who support the 1973 decision, want to live in a society where
fewer women find it necessary to have an abortion. We strongly support of
polices and programs that will decrease the instance of unplanned pregnancies.
It was reported last week that the United States abortion rate has dropped to
its lowest level since 1974. With more education of young people about human
sexuality and birth control and with more support of adoption organizations,
the number of abortions will continue to decrease.
In the meantime, in the real world in which we live, sometimes a woman is
pregnant and feels she cannot continue the pregnancy. She does what women
throughout history have done. She finds a way to end the pregnancy. When it is
over she feels sad—and she feels relieved.
My role as a man and as a minister is to do all I can to be supportive of
women as they struggle to make this decision, for only they are the only ones
who can make the choice that is best for them.
Office@CedarLane.org
| 
