Vigilant Rights of The Fetus



September 28, 2002—Ground Zero Plus 381
The Fetus & Vigilant Health

Cliff McKenzie
   Editor, New York City Combat Correspondent News

       GROUND ZERO, New York City, September 28--If there are Sentinels of Vigilance, and, if their prime concern is to protect the children's children's children from present and future harm, then their first duty is to insure a healthy birth so the child has the best chance of surviving life's limitless challenges.
        This morning I was looking for a "Vigilant Story."  There are many always that can be told, but I look for one with the most horizon--the one that has the most impact on the future of the children and their children's children.  

        The one that leapt out at me this morning was the recent ruling by the federal government to authorize health care under the Children's Health Insurance Program to fetuses--that is, to the unborn.
         Such a decision flies in the face of abortion rights advocates who consider the ruling a political ploy to "legitimatize" the status of the unborn to that of a "person."    In 1973 when the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade recognized a woman's right to an abortion, the U.S. Supreme Court said the word "person" used in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution "does not include the unborn."   The decision stripped fetuses of "individual rights."
         In a colder, harsher view, it authorized a mother to kill her baby without criminal liability.   Homicide is defined as the killing of a human being, and since a fetus has no legal standing as a "person" based on Roe v. Wade, sucking out the fetus is considered like blowing one's nose to the law.

          But there is a Moral Constitution which some consider of much higher authority than the U.S. Constitution, or any decision of Supreme Court judges who sit in tribunal over it, deciding what it means.   That Moral Constitution claims that "life" is "life" at conception, and despite any man-made interpretations otherwise, the denial of "Life Rights" is a direct assault on the future of humanity.    Some go so far as to consider abortion as the cannibalization of the human species.
         The Bush Administration has swerved around the issue of a woman's right to have an abortion to protect the unborn in another way.    To offer pre-natal care to unborn children otherwise not eligible for it, the Administration defines a "child" as "an individual under the age of 19, including the period from conception to birth."
         Under the new rule, states can use federal money to provide prenatal care to low-income pregnant women, even those who are illegal immigrants and would otherwise be ineligible.
         The U.S. Constitution allows citizenship to any person born in America, and even if the child's mother is an illegal alien, the child will be considered fully vested with all the rights of a U.S. citizen.   

Gloria Feldt

        Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said:  "This regulation is ridiculous.  It elevates the status of the fetus above that of the woman.  It does not provide prenatal care to the woman in whose body the fetus resides.  It makes the fetus eligible for prenatal care, but treats the woman as a mere vessel, an incubator."
          I thought long and hard about that comment by Ms. Feldt.
          "It elevates the status of the fetus above that of the woman."
          I pondered what was so wrong with that.
          If life is the most precious asset humans can enjoy, why wouldn't we elevate a child's life above ours?   Why would we bother to put children ahead of ourselves if we were equal?   Why wouldn't a mother under attack  leave her children to be consumed by the beast instead of throwing herself in harm's way in hopes her child would escape?
          If we give equal status to mothers and children, we give up the hope for the future.   We stop elevating "life" as the gift we give to the future, and normalize it, make it as common as another pair of shoes, or a new dress, or new car--a commodity that can be used and disposed of at will.

          What bothers me about the clamoring over the decision to offer health care rights to the unborn is that any woman can have an abortion if she wants, but not all women can enjoy prenatal care.    The right to kill and the right to "nurture" are not equal, until now, that is.
           Under the new ruling, a mother who elects to have her child, and isn't able to afford the cost of insuring the child's health, will have that ability.
           Tommy G. Thompson, secretary of health and human services, says "What better way to allow kids to have the best start in life, a healthy start?"  
           Cost of the program is estimated to be $330 million over five years, and that 30,000 fetuses would have coverage as a result.  In contrast, over one million abortions are conducted in the United States each year.
           I thought about the Sentinels of Vigilance--those who died on Nine Eleven--the thousands who hover over the World Trade Center and Pentagon and a lonely field in Pennsylvania, their eyes searching the horizon for signs of Terrorism, like lighthouses casting beacons to protect the children and their children's children from harm.
           I wondered if they would consider the new ruling good or bad.   Would they think a woman owed her unborn child the best of possible care?   Would they think that in a burning building a mother should save herself first rather than her children, as Ms. Feldt infers by denouncing the elevation of the fetus above the mother?  
           I thought of the immigrant workers who died anonymously in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.   I wondered how many of them were "illegal?"   I wondered how many had pregnant wives or significant others?   I wondered if they would look upon this decision to provide pre-natal care to the unborn as a political ploy to usurp the right of abortion, or a moral responsibility by a nation of Vigilant Parents to protect the health of future citizens?

      My grandson was conceived on Nine Eleven.   He is a healthy, vibrant baby boy, full of life and eager to explore the world as any child who is born with the best of care.     I wondered if he had been deprived prenatal care, might he have entered this world deficient, perhaps crippled by lack of certain nutrients?   Would his citizenship have become a handicap to society had he not been attended to with the most modern and advanced medical support the world can offer?
           I thought of those mothers who, when faced with the choice of a difficult childbirth, chose the risk of their death to secure the life of their child.   I thought of Nature's creatures who will fight to the death to protect their young, willingly giving their lives to protect their young.

           And then I thought of Ms. Feldt's statement--the insanity of proposing that a fetus should not have rights that supercede its mother's.    I thought of my wife, and her willingness to fight to the death for her children.  I remember one occasion when a robber was trying to steal our van.  I was away on a trip.   My wife had taken our two young daughters to the movie.   The robber startled my wife, and a great fight ensued, with my wife kicking and fighting like a banshee, protecting not the van, but our two children from potential harm.
           I thought of the revulsion of Susan, the mother who drove her children into a pond, locking them in the car and drowning them, and how her act of selfishness made our country gag.
           "It elevates the status of the fetus above that of the woman."
I thought a great deal about the Vigilance of a woman who would believe she had more rights than her unborn child.   I wondered if she understood that Vigilance was about looking ahead at the future, and protecting it?   I wondered if she understood that Vigilance was about selflessness rather than selfishness?

      Then I thought about Terrorism.   I thought about those who would deny an unborn child the right of a healthy birth, and would stand on some flimsy political pinpoint, shouting out that a fetus did not have the same rights as a mother, and certainly not any more rights than a mother.    I thought about how many people fall into that thinking, and how they elect to elevate their own self over that of an unborn child by promoting "a woman's right to kill a child."
         But then I had to remember that in Roe v. Wade, the word "person" didn't extend to the fetus.   I had to remember the greatest Terror on earth is when we kill our own, or, when we believe we have more rights than our children, or our future children.
            Shame on me!


Go To Sep 27--"Anti-Semitic Vigilance"

©2001 - 2004,, All rights reserved -  a ((HYYPE)) design