January 22 is perhaps the saddest day in our nation's history. On January 22, 1973, the majority of our Supreme Justices voted to legalize the killing of unborn babies.

Writing about this issue is not easy for two reasons: first, it is such a divisive issue in our country. Second, I am always aware as I write that some people reading my columns may have been directly or indirectly involved in an abortion. In my experience, women who have had an abortion were often pressured into doing so or had the abortion at a time in life when they were not very aware of the serious nature of their decision morally, spiritually, emotionally or even physically.

If you were directly or indirectly involved in an abortion and are sorry, then of course God has forgiven you. If you have confessed this sin and continue to feel guilty about your action, I would encourage you to speak with a priest or counselor. Over the years I have, with God's grace, been able to meditate God's healing to women or others directly or indirectly involved in the termination of an unborn child's life. God does not want us to continue to carry the heavy burden of our past transgressions. Jesus's desire is always to free us from the burden of our sins and heal us from their impact in our lives.

A Tough Challenge

The challenge of our church and for each of us as disciples of Jesus is to be very clear and strong in our defense of unborn life (and all life) and at the same time show compassion to all who at sometime failed to share respect for life God had placed in their care.

Comment on the Roe Decision

Recently I came across an interesting quote on the Roe decision by Edward Lazarus, a former law clerk of Roe's author, Justice Harry Blackmun. Lazarus writes:

As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather. . . .

What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent. . .

The proof of Roe's failings comes not from the writings of those unsympathetic to women's rights, but from the decision itself and the friends who have tried to sustain it. Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.

The above quote is taken from an article called: Ten Legal Reasons to Reject Roe, by Susan Wills, Esq. If you wish to read the whole article you can access at the U.S. Bishops ProLife website: http://www.usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/03wills.htm .

In a statement of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on the 30th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we read both sad and hopeful things. They write:

Most Americans are surprised and shocked to learn about the lack of any meaningful legal limitations for abortion. Most know things have gone too far. Together with those from many other faith communities, we work to bring about a society that recognizes abortion for what it truly is.

Many young people today comprehend the legacy of Roe. They look at thirty years of legal abortion and weep over the 40 million lives destroyed. They are aware that one in every four pregnancies ends in abortion, and they grieve for the world they will soon inherit. They mourn the fact that each year approximately 1.3 million abortions take place, and that thousands of them are done in the sixth month of pregnancy or later, when the child would likely survive if born.

Many who came of age at the time of Roe were hopeful about what it was said to promise: an end to poverty and abuse. Who would not hope for these things? But legal abortion promised what it could not give. It promised women a freedom to participate more fully in society, but it took their children and broke their hearts. Countless women have suffered physically, emotionally, and spiritually because of abortion; many have even lost their lives. Many men, too, mourn the loss of their children, while others carry the heavy burden of having persuaded their daughter, wife, or girlfriend to have an abortion.

Thirty years after Roe v. Wade, some may think that the pro-life movement's efforts have amounted to nothing because Roe v. Wade still stands.

But that misses the heart of the matter:

Today fewer abortions are being done each year, and fewer doctors are willing to be involved in abortion.

More Americans identify themselves as pro-life, while the numbers of those saying they are "pro-choice" have declined significantly.

Ultrasound and other medical advances have made possible a greater appreciation of the humanity of the unborn child.

In these three decades thousands of pro-life groups, individual parishes, Catholic social service agencies and pregnancy resource centers have provided practical assistance and support to thousands of women facing difficult pregnancies.

Most state legislatures have enacted measures to restrict or regulate the practice of abortion and reduce its incidence.

Why so much youthful energy in the cause of life? Because the hearts of the young are open to life and are filled with love of life. The minds of the young are open to the truth about abortion. They dream of a world without Roe v. Wade, and they live as if the dream were true. Their hearts are full of compassion for unborn children and for young women who are confused and suffering, and they look for ways to serve them. Many in the last generation fought for legal abortion; but more today know that women deserve better, and so fight for true freedom for women. Yong people know that the future is in their hands, and their hearts yearn to bring a message of hope and healing to a culture in great need of hearing it. Roe v. Wade has left a trail of broken hearts. Through Project Rachel and other ministries, we will continue to help the broken-hearted. Those who resort to abortion out of a sense of desperation often find the cruel reality of abortion too difficult to bear. But it is too difficult only a world without God and therefore without hope. We must reach these hearts and give them hope. These are the converted hearts that will at last bring an end to abortion.

Roe v. Wade cannot stand as the law of this great nation, a nation founded on the self-evident truth that all people are created with an inalienable right to life. We are committed, no matter how long it may take, no matter the sacrifices required, to bringing about a reversal of this tragic Supreme Court decision. We will speak out on behalf of the sanctity of each and every human life wherever it is threatened, from conception to natural death, and we urge all people of good will to do likewise. For, as Pope John Paul II reminds us, "it is impossible to further the common good without acknowledging and defending the right to life, upon which all the other inalienable rights of individuals are founded and from which they develop "(The Gospel of Life, no 101). Rose v. Wade must be reversed.

"Living the Gospel of Life"

In 1998, the U.S. Bishops wrote a prolife pastoral statement called: Living the Gospel of Life. This statement addresses not only respect for the life of the unborn, but also respect for all of human life. It presents us with a "consistent ethic of life" - respect for life all the way. The statement calls for Catholics to be prolife on a whole range of issues. An excerpt:

Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care. . . Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life.

But being "right" in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks of innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the "rightness" of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful.