Reagan.rnAbortion rests on normative deception and hypocrisy, and arnfalse and pusillanimous civility repeatedly fails to identif}’ it forrnwhat it is, namely, early homicide. Even stalwart defenders ofrnthe unborn, such as Dr. Koop and Illinois Republican CongressmanrnHenry Hyde, who know the truth about abortion veryrnwell, defer to the principles of civility when dealing with abortionrnadvocates. Both gentlemen belong to a generation forrnwhich courtesy is a virtue, and whether it is in the halls of Congressrnor in the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates,rnone must discourse with reasonable politeness if one is tornbe allowed to speak at all.rnOften civility towards the powerful who favor abortion seemsrna necessary price to pay to enter the political playgrounds. Dr.rnKoop is passionately committed to reforming America’s healthrncare system for the sake of all the people, and the Clintons werernable to recruit his support for Mrs. Clinton’s proposed HealthrnSecurit)’ program. Dr. Koop became an enthusiastic advocate,rnwarmly supporting the plan in an effort to achieve a greater goalrnand inadvertently lending a bit of his moral stature to the immoralrnClintons.rnDare we say “immoral”? Does that not impugn the honor ofrnthe President and the dignity of the presidency? hideed it does,rnbut how can one say less of people committed to the ad libitumrndestruction of innocent unborn life? Civiliti,’ and politicalrncourtesy would forbid the word, but honest}- requires it. AsrnPsalm 12:8 says, “The wicked strut about on ever- side, whenrnvileness is exalted among the sons of men.” It is not even necessar-rnthat vileness be exalted; it need merely be passed over inrnsilence, and people who are committed to the perpetuation ofrnwickedness can strut about unchallenged. Unfortunately,rnmany anti-abortionists have a sense of courteous deference thatrnignores the fundamental evil being espoused by their adversaries.rnThe pro-life side often appears to consider it a great concessionrnif they are merely allowed to enter the discussion and tornarticulate their concerns. Despite the regularit’ with which thernpro-abortionists assault them with offensive, false, and irrelevantrncharges (such as being “anti-choice,” opposed to “reproductivernfreedom,” intent on creating a dominant patriarchy,rnand so on), pro-lifers meekly comply with the pro-abortionists’rndebate rules and call them “pro-choice.” But what are theyrnchoosing? Nothing but the right to kill (“terminate”) unwantedrnunborn children. The “pro-choice” forces frequentiy getrnaway with labeling their adversaries “anti-choice,” which is logicalrnenough if one accepts their self-designation. But the prolifersrnalmost never perform the parallel function. The “right tornlife” party ought to call its opposition “right to kill,” but ofrncourse that would be discourteous, albeit true.rnNot every pro-lifer minces his or her words. ProfessorrnCeorge Williams, at one time president of Americans Unitedrnfor Life, is a gentle and mild-mannered man, but he did notrnhesitate to call the Supreme Court of Roe v. Wade “that evilrncourt.” An evil court? How can one attribute motives or judgernmorals? One might more reasonabh ask, what else can onernwho knows the truth say? In Roe v. Wade, the Court permittedrnthe killing of over 30 million babies who would have been native-rnborn American citizens. The West Cerman Federal ConstitutionalrnCourt {Bundesverfassungsgericht), which now is thernhighest court of the united Germany, was outspoken in its 1974rndecision on abortion, writing, “The usual language, terminationrnof pregnancy, cannot conceal the fact that abortion is arnhoiuicidal act.”rnEven in its 1974 decision, the German court made provisionrnfor the toleration of abortion under certain circumstances.rnNow, after the unification of Germany, abortion is permissiblernearly in pregnancy, with the provision that a woman seeking anrnabortion must obtain pre-abortion counseling and produce arnSchein (certificate) to demonstrate that she has listened to thernadmonitions and cautions. Most of the pro-life counseling centersrnare associated with either the Roman Catholic Church orrnthe Evangelical Church of Germany; at this writing, thernCatholic agencies will counsel but give no Schein if the womanrnpersists in wanting the abortion; the Protestant agencies willrncounsel continuation of the pregnancy, but will give the Scheinrnif the woman rejects their arguments and persists in demandingrnit. This hardly constitutes a great impediment to a woman’srnfreedom, particularly where what she is demanding is the freedomrnto take a life, but it does at least recognize what is at stakernand makes it plain that German societ) deplores the prospect ofrn”terminating” a developing child. In the United States, such arnprovision would be regularly and speedily thrown out by federalrncourt.rnThe seven justices who concurred in Roe may not have realizedrnthe full import of their decision, but by the time ofrnCasey v. Planned Parenthood, the five justices who concurred tornuphold Roe could no longer pretend such ignorance. For thernmost part, their reasoning relied not on morality or justice butrnon precedent. Should one call former Justice Harr}’ A. Blackmun,rnthe author of Roe, or current justices O’Connor,rnKennedy, and Souter—each of them appointed by a pro-lifernPresident—who reaffirmed Roe, evil? If not them, then at leastrntheir deeds.rnDr. Koop and Congressman Hyde, and many others whoserncommitment to the pro-life cause is unquestioned, refrain fromrnmaking a clear condemnation such as that uttered by ProfessorrnWilliams. Civility on the part of anti-abortionists when dealingrnwith the pro-abortion establishment may sometimes be justifiedrnin terms of the political etiquette necessary to get thingsrndone in a late, sensate, democratic society. It can be arguedrnthat massive denunciation of pro-abortionists, although morallyrnjustifiable, would foreclose the possibility of getting at leastrnsome amelioration of the abortion culture and of saving thernlives of at least some unborn children. But civilitv’, if necessaryrnand desirable, should never fail to do at least what an occasionalrnhonest man, such as Steve Forbes, has done in calling everyrnabortion an evil, while admitting that no significant progressrncan be made unless the hearts of people are changed.rnNot every anti-abortionist is civil and courteous. Mr. JosephrnScheidler was recently convicted, under the RICO (Racketeering-rnInfluenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, of “conspiracy”rnto damage abortion clinics by tactics (non-violent, ofrncourse) designed to keep customers away from abortion clinicrndoors. Mr. Scheidler, we will admit, is not very civil. But whatrnhe says is the truth, and what his opponents are doing, now supportedrnby the courts, is dishonest from the ground up.rnIs it hard to understand why a Supreme Court decision allowsrnthe RICO Act to be used against a protest group, one thatrnmight fairiy be described as a civil rights group? WHiy did Congressrnpass, and flie President sign, the PACE (Protection of Accessrnto Clinic iLntrances) Act? The answer, of course, is that nornone is willing to admit what has been done by the tens ofrnmillions since 1973, namely, the legally sanctioned killing ofrndeveloping human beings. The number of “terminations”—rnAUGUST 1998/15rnrnrn