Scott Tibbs
Yes, we need a national abortion ban
By Scott Tibbs, September 26, 2022
Back in 1858, Abraham Lincoln made the following statement about slavery in a speech:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.
Lincoln's statement about chattel slavery could easily be applied to another human rights crisis: The slaughter of unborn babies in their mother's wombs. The Supreme Court crammed down abortion "rights" on all 50 sates in 1973, making the debate - and the consequences of Presidential elections - much more high-stakes than they had been before. That wicked ruling was finally reversed this past summer.
Now, we have a patchwork of legislation around the nation, as some states move to protect babies and others work to enshrine "abortion rights" into law. The divide between "red states" and "blue states" was already wide and growing before
Dobbs vs. Jackson was decided, and large disparities in abortion laws will accelerate that divide and make it bigger. Because of this, it makes sense to have a nationwide ban on abortion. This will protect all unborn babies, not just babies in Republican states.
But what about "muh states' rights?" No one disputes in 2022 that a national ban on chattel slavery is a good idea and should remain in place. No one disputes that everyone should have equal protection under the law, instead of allowing victimization of particular people groups. So why should abortion be any different?
State sovereignty is important. Our nation was built on a federalist system where (in theory at least) each state has the authority to manage its own affairs with minimal interference from the federal government. Allowing each state to serve as a "laboratory of democracy" has strengthened national unity by preventing each state from forcing its own policy preferences on other states. People in Indiana do not want to be governed by California, and people in Massachusetts do not want to be governed by Texas.
But basic human rights should not be decided on a state-by-state basis. If abortion really is the unjust termination of an innocent human life, people in "red states" should not stand by and do nothing while places like New York protect and even accelerate the slaughter of tens of thousands of unborn babies. The state government in Albany has the authority to impose
New York Values on a wide variety of issues, but that should not extend to denying basic human rights.
Roe vs. Wade might be consigned to the ash heap of history, but the fight to protect innocent babies is far from over. Now is not the time for abortion opponents to relax or slow down. Now is the time to press our advantage, ideally ending in a constitutional amendment protecting all human lives from the point of fertilization onward.
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
ConservaTibbs.com