Shirley Richards, Contributor

Undoubtedly, the inauguration of President Barack Obama has brought great joy and pride to blacks everywhere. Who would believe that a black man could ever be the president of arguably the most powerful nation in the world? It is certainly one of the greatest historic events of our times!

Unfortunately, however, President Barack Obama has declared that one of his first presidential acts would be the signing into law of the Freedom of Choice Act, which will have the effect of striking down all prohibitions against abortions, including partial-birth abortions. Laws allowing medical personnel to refuse to perform abortions, on the grounds of conscience, will also very likely be struck down. This act could outstrip the effects of the Roe v Wade decision, which was issued by the United States Supreme Court on January 22, 1973.

Fourteenth Amendment

One aspect of the Roe v Wade decision was the ruling that the word "person" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution "does not include the unborn". On that point, Justice Blackman reasoned:

"All this, together with our observation that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word 'person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the unborn."

These words bear a chilling resemblance to the words of Chief Justice Roger Taney in the 1857 United States Supreme Court Dred Scott decision. According to the chief justice, the question to be decided was simply:

"Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States and as such become entitled to all the rights and privileges and immunities guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen?"

On that question, Justice Taney held as follows:

"In the opinion of the Court, the legislation and histories of the times and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in the general words used in that memorable instrument."

(Justice Taney must now be turning in his grave with the ascendancy of a black man to the presidency!)

It is now a year since the Abortion Report was tabled in Parliament having been tabled on January 16, 2008. Interestingly, on January 15, 2008, certain members of the anti-abortion movement received written assurances signed by the minister of health that the report would not have been tabled without the promised public consultations. Only one such public consultation has since been held.

The Gleaner, in its editorial of November 14, 2008, referred to the local debate as "dithering" on the part of parliamentarians. (Is it that The Gleaner was annoyed at the presentation of Dr Brady-West to the joint select committee the day before?) The rationale for the recommendation to legalise abortion was the question of maternal health. The impression was given that hundreds of women were dying from illegal abortions. To date, this has not been substantiated. Instead, figures released by the Ministry of Health last year revealed that between 2001 and 2005, three deaths took place due to abortions, with one death occurring in 2001 and the other two in 2004 and 2005. Such figures now place suspicion on the credibility of the report tabled by the minister. Further it has also been revealed that our local Cabinet Office itself invalidated the claim contained in the tabled report that legalisation of abortion was necessary in order to achieve Millennium Development Goal # 5.

The anti-abortion presentations to the joint select committee have been more than just exposition of religious doctrines. Instead, science, statistics, personal testimonies and research done by the Ministry of Health itself have all been employed to highlight the fallacies contained in the tabled report.

Common issue

One interesting feature of the anti-abortion fight is that both local Protestants and Catholics have been able to find a common issue. They have been able to focus on an issue which unites, as distinct from those issues which have traditionally kept them divided.

Another interesting feature is the energy and passion which have been stirred up in the young people who have been willing to organise marches, to address public fora and who are currently preparing to address the joint select committee.

Then there was Professor Brendan Bain of the University Hospital who was quoted as saying, "All doctors know how to kill elegantly." So, for us in Jamaica the issue is still very much alive.

Some countries have now gone to the extent of allowing infanticide. Just read about the Groningen Protocol, which operates in the Netherlands, where doctors are able with the protection of the law to kill a child terminally ill even up until age 12. Many do not realise that Russia, being the first country to legalise abortion, now has a serious population concern, with abortion being listed as one of the top causes of a rapidly declining population.

Thus, it was not surprising that the week of November 24, 2008, was declared by authorities in the Russian city of Novorossiysk, to be a 'week without abortion'; doctors won't conduct termination operations except in 'the most extreme cases.' http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/33696 .

The Dred Scott case now seems like legal lunacy, especially in light of President Obama's ascendancy to the presidency. After all, what right did a court of law or a legislature for that matter, have to make a decision barring the black race from citizenship in the United States? And so we ask - President Obama notwithstanding: What right does a court of law or a legislature have to make a decision which would give others the right to bar a child in the womb from enjoying his or her right to life?