Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

Christine M. Flowers | THE BABIES WHO DON'T MAKE THE CUT

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life."

Justice Kennedy: What a concept.
Justice Kennedy: What a concept.Read moreAssociated Press

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life."

THAT ISN'T the mantra of a new-age guru, something overheard on Oprah's couch or a pithy quote on a Snapple lid.

This lyrical piece of wisdom is Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's take on abortion. In what his colleague Antonin Scalia ridiculed as the "sweet mystery of life" passage of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, Kennedy explained why he believed women have the inherent right to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

To him, and to those who agree with him, abortion is just one of the many ways in which women can unravel that troubling mystery for themselves.

That works well for people who believe that sex and reproduction are completely private matters. Kennedy's theory facilitates the pro-choice faction, since free will is commonly perceived as a keystone of human dignity. Anyone who dares challenge a woman's right to determine her "reproductive destiny" is denying her her humanity.

So Roe becomes an eternal and unassailable symbol of female autonomy. Woe be it unto him (or her) who questions its legality, morality or finality.

If a woman decides that the creature in her womb, inching towards its own autonomy, will prevent her from getting that Wharton MBA, good luck finding a liberal who'd question her right to abort.

If the pregnancy is the product of rape, liberals, moderates and even some conservatives would permit termination.

If the child-to-be has been diagnosed with some genetic disease that will guarantee an early, horrible death, all but the most committed pro-lifers would see the mercy in abortion. In fact, the entire science of genetic testing is designed to minimize the odds that children will be born with hereditary afflictions. A bit Mengele-ish, but the intentions are noble.

But what happens when a woman unravels Justice Kennedy's mystery in a way that offends "evolved" sensibilities?

Consider this: A woman wants a son, not a daughter. She has an ultra-sound at seven weeks and realizes that she's carrying Jill, not Jack. According to Justice Kennedy's theory, this mother should have the right to end the pregnancy since a girl wouldn't define her "concept of existence" as well as a boy.

How ridiculous, sniffs NOW. How unlikely, sneers NARAL Pro-Choice America. Sadly, the sniffing and sneering won't erase the millions of sex-selective abortions performed in India and China, the ones that have left a troubling gender imbalance in those countries.

But, you say, American women aren't like that. They terminate pregnancies for non-frivolous reasons like saving their lives, their health or their sanity. They would never use abortion as an extreme form of birth control or as a way to guarantee blue booties over pink.

PERHAPS NOT, although statistics show that far too many women do use abortion as a sort of "10 weeks after" pill.

But according to Roe and Casey, that's irrelevant. If women have the inalienable right to control their reproductive destinies, why should motive matter?

Enter Pandora and her box. In 1993, researchers isolated what they believed might be a "gay gene" that could prove that homosexuality is innate, not acquired. In other words, nature - not nurture.

Experts disagree with both the modalities and the results of the research, and most people believe that sexual orientation is a combination of both the genetic and the environmental.

But suppose we really could isolate that blessed gene. What would happen if a woman found out that she was carrying a "gay" fetus and decided she couldn't deal with that? Or perhaps she's bearing a mixed-race child, and doesn't want

to face the societal repercussions.

According to Justice Kennedy, that mother would have the right to abort her child, just as she'd have the ability to abort a baby with sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs.

And, ironically, if feminists have their way and the Equal Rights Amendment is resurrected from its well-deserved grave, the federal government will be forced to pay for at least some of these eugenic adventures.

This is the horrible reality of Justice Kennedy's purple prose. Getting to determine our own "concept of existence" is dandy, as long as the only people we're affecting are the ones staring back at us in the mirror.

Once we start redesigning the world based on our personal tastes and evolving morality, we lose the one thing that defines us as human beings.

Our souls. *

Christine M. Flowers is a lawyer. See her on Channel 6's "Inside Story" Sunday at 11:30 a.m. E-mail cflowers1961@yahoo.com.