Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search


Patricia Johnson: Values vs. Morals

Values vs. Morals

by Patricia Johnson

Thirty one years ago, case law established that the government of the U.S. cannot interfere in personal decisions about reproduction, marriage and certain other aspects of family life. Jane Roe was an unmarried woman who sought to safely and legally terminate her pregnancy. The Roe v. Wade, (410 U.S. 113) (click here) Supreme Court decision acknowledged that the constitutional right to privacy "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy" which legalized abortion.

Abortion is an issue that divides the U.S. along the same lines as the 2004 election with a majority of Republicans on the ‘Right to Life’ side and a majority of Democrats on the ‘Right to Choose’ side. Unfortunately, abortion is not as simple as choosing sides.

It’s a subject that extends beyond the here and now into the future. When a woman gives birth to a child she is not simply giving “birth”, she is basically committing herself to raise and care for that child for the rest of his/her life. Does the government of the U.S. or any other government in the world have the right to tell a woman what she is going to do for the rest of her natural life? If the government of the U.S. is going to be involved in the care and upbringing of the child, then absolutely they may have a say. But, they are not involved.

The government is not there at 2:00 in the morning when you’re stumbling out of bed to give the newborn a bottle. The government is not there to drive you and your child to the pediatrician for necessary inoculations. The government is not there to drive you and your child to the grocery store to purchase the necessary items to feed and clothe the child, nor do they pay for the purchases. The government is not there to drive you and your child to school, but demand that your child attend school for a certain numbers of years.

When you bring a child into the world you and your spouse are solely responsible for supporting and caring for that child until his or her emancipation (and beyond, if you’re a good parent). When you are a single parent you get double-duty on the workload and the child becomes your sole responsibility. Is it any wonder that thousands of women opt for an abortion every year?

The alternative to abortion, when a child is unwanted, is generally foster care or adoption. But, is that a feasible alternative? When you give birth to a child do you want to wonder, for the rest of your natural life, what happened to the child? Will you wonder if the child is living in squalor and filth, is being abused, or has been transported to a foreign country and sold as a slave?

Children’s Rights completed a report “Continuing Danger Revisited:” (click here) that focused on the deaths of 81 children, in New York City, during the 14-month period from January 2003 through mid-March 2004. This study is a follow-up 2003 report “Continuing Danger: A Report on Child Fatalities in New York City”. Continuing Danger Revisited splits the decreased children into three groups as follows:

GROUP I - 34 cases – These children had no involvement with the New York City public child welfare, or the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) prior to their death.

HOMICIDES – “as in the initial study, the most frequently found manner of death was homicide (41%)”

GROUP II - 21 cases – The family was known to ACS and the child was in the custody of biological family at time of death.

HOMICIDES – “Despite the fact that the families were known to ACS, a significant number of children in this group were murdered. Homicide was the manner of death for 43% of the children in this group.”

GROUP III - 26 cases – The child died while in foster care.

HOMOCIDES – “The three homicides of children in foster care involved two adolescents and one child under the age of one.”

What is so significant about the Children’s Rights report is the fact that after their initial report was released in 2003, another 81 children died.

When George W. Bush won the 2004 election we knew that Roe v. Wade would be in danger of being overturned by the placement of pro-life appointees to the Supreme Court when vacancies arise.

What we didn’t take into consideration is our Republican dominated Congress which added a provision to the $388 billion dollar spending bill passed Saturday making “it a little easier for hospitals, insurers and others to refuse to provide or cover abortions” according to AP headline news (click here)

Making abortions more difficult for women that do not want the child they are carrying in their womb is wrong because the decision will result in more deaths to children, or worse – the children may spend their entire childhood being mentally, emotionally, sexually or physically abused.


© 2004 Patricia Johnson

Patricia Johnson is a freelance writer and CEO of Articles and Answers. Visit us online at

© Scoop Media

Top Scoops Headlines


Binoy Kampmark: The Major Questions Doctrine: The US Supreme Court Blunts The EPA
The US Supreme Court has been frantically busy of late, striking down law and legislation with an almost crazed, ideological enthusiasm. Gun laws have been invalidated; Roe v Wade and constitutional abortion rights, confined to history. And now, the Environmental Protection Agency has been clipped of its powers in a 6-3 decision.
The June 30 decision of West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency was something of a shadow boxing act... More>>

Ian Powell: Are we happy living in Handy's Age of Unreason?

On 19 June the Sunday Star Times published my column on the relationship between the Labour government’s stewardship of Aotearoa New Zealand’s health system and the outcome of the next general election expected to be around September-October 2023: Is the health system an electoral sword of Damocles for Labour... More>>

The First Attack On The Independents: Albanese Hobbles The Crossbench
It did not take long for the new Australian Labor government to flex its muscle foolishly in response to the large crossbench of independents and small party members of Parliament. Despite promising a new age of transparency and accountability after the election of May 21, one of the first notable acts of the Albanese government was to attack the very people who gave voice to that movement. Dangerously, old party rule, however slim, is again found boneheaded and wanting... More>>

Dunne Speaks: Roe V. Wade Blindsides National

Momentum is everything in politics, but it is very fragile. There are times when unexpected actions can produce big shifts and changes in the political landscape. In 2017, for example, the Labour Party appeared headed for another hefty defeat in that year’s election until the abrupt decision of its then leader to step aside just weeks before the election. That decision changed the political landscape and set in train the events which led to Labour being anointed by New Zealand First to form a coalition government just a few weeks later... More>>

Digitl: Infrastructure Commission wants digital strategy
Earlier this month Te Waihanga, New Zealand’s infrastructure commission, tabled its first Infrastructure Strategy: Rautaki Hanganga o Aotearoa. Te Waihanga describes its document as a road map for a thriving New Zealand... More>>

Binoy Kampmark: Leaking For Roe V Wade
The US Supreme Court Chief Justice was furious. For the first time in history, the raw judicial process of one of the most powerful, and opaque arms of government, had been exposed via media – at least in preliminary form. It resembled, in no negligible way, the publication by WikiLeaks of various drafts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership... More>>