There are some extraordinary circumstancesrnwhen a normal (non-Christian)rnwoman might seriously consider killing arnchild—to save her own life, to save thernchild from suffering or disgrace —butrnthose circumstances do not come up onernout of a thousand times in abortion cases.rnAsk an elderly obstetrician how manyrntimes he has had to advise a family tornchoose between the mother’s life andrnthat of the child, and he will probably tellrnyou “Never.”rnAnother reason not to talk about abortionrnis that there is little room for politerndisagreement. People either know it isrnwrong, or they do not, and those whornwrite legal briefs, judicial decisions, andrnphilosophical articles defending thernslaughter of the innocent are worse thanrnthe butchers who make their living asrnabortionists or the sick and evil womenrnwho kill their babies.rnWith the Supreme Court’s recent decisionrnin Nebraska v. Carhart, we have finallyrnreached the point where even ordinaryrnpeople understand what only thernwise (e.g., C.S. Lewis) knew 50 years ago,rnand only the intelligent grasped in 1965,rnwhen the Supreme Court ruled, in thernGriswold case, that women had a right tornprivacy that included a right to contraception.rnIt is worth pausing a moment to reflectrnon Justice William O. Douglas’s importantrncontribution to the destruction of thernConstitution. In order to discover a pretextrnfor protecting homicide. JusticernDouglas had first to invent a constitutionalrnright to privacy. His tortured reasoningrnin Griswold makes amusing reading forrnpeople interested in the criminal mind.rnSince the Third and Fourth Amendments,rnfor example, go beyond merernquestions of quartering troops and searchrnand seizure to protect our privacy behindrnclosed doors, and since the Fifth Amendmentrnensures our privacy by guaranteeingrnthe right not to testify against ourselves,rnthen the entire Bill of Rights morernor less can be construed—by various vapors,rnemanations, and penumbras —torngive us the right to practice contraceptionrnand to commit murder so long as thesernactivities are carried out in the privacy ofrnour own bodies. It is really very simple. Ifrnthe government cannot quarter troops inrnour homes, God and nature cannot quarterrna baby in a woman’s body.rnDouglas’s arguments do not hold water,rneither constitutionally or logically.rnBoth contraception and abortion were regardedrnas sinful and immoral throughoutrnmost of Christian history, and a putativelyrnChristian state has the power to passrnstatutes consistent with the moral code ofrnthe overwhelming majority. Of course,rnsome laws (e.g., against theft and murderrnof fellow citizens) are more or less universal,rnbut many derive from specificrnmoral codes. To seduce a stepmotherrnwas a capital crime in Roman law, whichrnalso acknowledged a father’s right to executerna grossly disrespectfid son.rnChristian states, although they have inheritedrnmuch of the Roman law, imposerna different set of moral prohibitions—onrngambling and prostitution, for example,rnand on infanticide—while the legal systemsrnof Christian British nations, in affirmingrnhuman dignit)’, have gone stillrnfurther in protecting the rights of citizensrnagainst the usurpations of government.rnAlthough it is not true to say that thernConstitution and Bill of Rights are explicitlyrnChristian documents, they are inconceivablernin any context but that of thernAnglo-American Christian traditions inrnwhich the Framers lived. Abandon thernChristian basis of our law, and you willrnsoon find yourself debating such questionsrnas whether property is theft or whenrnlife begins.rnTo advance their bogus arguments,rnthe infanticidal justices have had the predictablernrecourse to obfuscatory researchrnand irrelevant statistics. Read the footnotesrnto Nebraska v. Carhart and yournmight think that Stephen Breyer or hisrnclerks knew something about embryology,rnwhen they cannot even grasp the simplernfact that the human embryo is human.rnIn Roe V. Wade, Justice Douglasrnpretended to believe that there is somernkind of moral difference of opinion overrninfanticide, and in writing for the majority.rnJustice Harry Blackmun wadedrnthrough mountains of completely irrelevantrninformation about the gestation periodrnof human infants. Why? Because inrnmedicalizing this very simple moralrnquestion, Blackmun and Breyer are ablernto throw dust in the eyes of ordinary peoplernwho might otherwise know what a babyrnis. Opponents of abortion have all toornoften taken the bait, confining their fightingrnto the technical lines laid down byrnthe infanticide lobby.rnModerates (as well as many supposedrnhard-liners) apparently did not get thernpoint, preferring to distinguish contraceptionrn(bad, maybe, but not real bad)rnfrom abortion, and late-term abortionsrnfrom those performed before the fetus beginsrnto look very human. This was therngist of a key part of the Casey decision inrn1992, which while pretending to criticizernRoe, actually buttressed its essential provisions.rnWhile the majority in Casey wasrncongratulating itself for clarifying thernstandards for viability and the “unduernburden” that could not be put on womenrnseeking an abortion. Justice Scalia wasrnopenly contemptuous of their bad logicrnand incomprehensible, pettifogging distinctions:rn”It is difficult to maintain the illusionrnthat we are interpreting a Constitution,rnrather than inventing one,” hernwrote.rnThe Casey standards were more or lessrnignored by Justice Breyer, writing for thernmajorit)’ in Carhart, and although JusticesrnRehnquist and Thomas expressedrntheir unhappiness with this about-face.rnJustice Scalia could not help pointingrnout the fundamental mistake made inrnCasey, though the tone of his dissent isrnmore one of melancholy resignationrnthan of the fire of defiance. While JusticernScalia is sometimes criticized for his lackrnof civility, it is actually his forbearancernthat is hard to decipher. I frankly wonderrnhow a man of his caliber can remain inrnthe same room with Sandra O’Connorrnwithout gagging.rnIf Griswold and Roe are constitutionalrnfantasies, Nebraska v. Carhart mightrnhave been drafted by the great Marquisrnde Sade himself Agreeing with their decisionrnin Casey that the state may regulaternor even proscribe abortions performedrnafter viabilit)’ has been reached,rnthe majority went on to argue—encouragedrnby the American College of Obstetriciansrnand Gynecologists—that a staternimposes an undue burden on a womanrnby ouriavving specific methods. In otherrnwords, states can pass laws against homicide,rnbut they may not forbid stabbing orrnshooting per se.rnThe argument over viability nowrnlooks, in retrospect, to have been an aesthetic,rnrather than a legal or moral, position.rnThe dishonest term “partial-birthrnabortion” cannot conceal the reality.rnWhat the Nebraska law forbade is infanticide,rndefined simply as when a physicianrn”partially delivers vaginally a living unbornrnchild before killing . . . the child.”rnThe ghouls on the Court apparently believernthat, as long as a baby has a little toernin contact with his mother, his murderrnmay be treated as abortion.rnWhere in a nation of 270 million peoplerndid we find five specimens like StephenrnBreyer, Sandra Day O’Connor,rnRuth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens,rnOCTOBER 2000/47rnrnrn