On February 17, 2009, almost in time for Valentine’s
Day, the North Dakota House of Representatives passed The Personhood of
Children Act (House Resolution 1572), protecting the rights of all citizens
from conception onwards. The resolution, introduced by Rep. Dan Ruby, passed by
a vote of 51-41. The bill is being argued in the ND Senate as we speak.
In effect, the House sought to repair, better yet, reconnect two fundamental notions that were ruptured on January 22, 1973, in Roe v. Wade: personhood and when human life begins. Chief Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade, and, in section IX.A, dealt with the legal definition of “person”:
The appellee [D.A. Henry Wade,
representing the State of Texas] and certain amici [friends of the court] argue that the fetus is a “person”
within the language and meaning of the 14th Amendment…. The Constitution
does not define “person” in so many words…. But in nearly all these instances
[where the term “person” is found in the U.S. Constitution and its amendments]
the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None
indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
In the next breath (IX.B), Blackmun changed the
subject to the beginning of human life. His conclusion—erroneous at the most
microscopic, genetic level—changed human history for all time:
Texas argues that,
apart from the 14th Amendment, life begins at conception and is present
throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest
in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins.
When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and
theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in
the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the
answer. (Emphasis added.)
But, Justice Blackman had obviously decided when human life did not begin, namely, at conception and, de facto, anytime thereafter up to the viability of the fetus (when, presumably, the State’s interest in the fetus would be “compelling” enough to trump the mother’s interest; cf. section X).
More than two years before Blackmun’s decision, an editorial appeared in California Medicine, the official journal of the California Medical Association. The editor was looking into the future and could see that abortion would be part of society’s fabric. Under the apt title, “A New Ethic for Medicine and Society” (Vol. 113, No. 3, Sept. 1970), the writer mused:
Since the old ethic has
not been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion
from the idea of killing, which continues to be abhorrent. The result has been a
curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that
human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether intra- or
extra-uterine, until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are
required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be
ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices.
It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because
while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected. (Emphasis
added.)
In North Dakota, the old ethic had not been eradicated, and the people and their representatives rallied to posit personhood in the womb, via the law. "North Dakotans have gotten used to cold temperatures like -44 degrees, but they haven't gotten used to child-killing," said one resident.
HR 1572, in part: "For purposes of interpretation of the constitution and laws of North Dakota, it is the intent of the legislative assembly that an individual, a person, when the context indicates that a reference to an individual is intended, or a human being includes any organism with the genome of homo sapiens." "This is very simply defining when life begins,” said Rep. Ruby, “and giving that life some protections under our Constitution—the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Out of the ashes caused by Roe v. Wade, rises the phoenix
of personhood in the womb. If the North Dakota Senate follows the House, the
36-year old rupture between personhood and conception would be healed, at least
in one state. To mix metaphors, what a mustard seed that would be.
Very good Mr John Hamlon! thank you. In Christ, Mary
Posted by: Mary Herboth | March 21, 2009 at 09:50 AM
Mary, thank you for your comment.
Theresa Wallace, former South Dakotan and one of the University's exceptional students, put me on to North Dakota's landmark resolution. She's proud to be a Dakotan. I, a former next-door Minnesotan, share her pride and hope that some of North Dakota's grace, wisdom, and courage spills across the border into my home state.
Posted by: John Hamlon | March 22, 2009 at 08:00 AM