January 22, 2015, was supposed to be a historic day. As many already know, this was the day for the annual March for Life that annually attracts hundreds of thousands of pro-lifers to the Washington, DC area give voice to the voiceless unborn. It was also supposed to be the day when the US House of Representatives voted on the historic Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (HR 36). Unfortunately, the House leadership unexpectedly pulled HR 36 from being voted upon less than 24 hours before the vote, due to the concerns of a handful of legislators. Led by Representative Renee Ellmers (R-NC), these Congressmen were apparently unhappy with the language dealing with the rape exception.
While the rape exception is certainly considered a weakness of the bill, it is interesting to note that these legislators were not trying to get it removed, but rather were unhappy that the bill mandated that the alleged rape be reported. While many pro-life legislative experts are not fond of this language since it demeans those human beings conceived by means of violence, however, it is understood that if the rape exception is to be enacted the language needs to be strict enough as to prevent abuse of the law. The bill simply states that the abortion may take place if “the pregnancy is the result of rape, or the result of incest against a minor, if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency, or if the incest against a minor has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency or to a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse or neglect” (pg.5 , line 23-pg. 7, line 6 , HR 36, 114th Congress). Apparently, these legislators believed the rape exception was too stringent.
But does this argument have any merit? This question can be answered in several ways. Firstly, the history of the abortion industry has been known to flaunt the law. Countless articles have been written detailing how abortionists try to circumvent pro-life legislation. The eluding of statutory rape laws, parental involvement laws, and sanitation laws have all been recorded within the last few years alone. The Kermit Gosnell case only cemented the fact that many in the abortion industry try to play fast and loose not only with the lives of people, but also with public policies that have been passed to regulate them. If the bill were to be amended that removes the language “if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency”, then it merely needs to be mentioned to the abortionist that pregnancy was a result of rape in order for the abortion to be performed. It is not too far-fetched to consider that the abortion industry will try to use this vague language to their benefit.
Secondly, does a victim of rape have a duty to report her sexual assault? Tragically, it has been reported that the vast majority of rapes are not reported to the local authorities. However, it seems that HR 36 is asking for the bare minimum duty to be performed if an abortion is to take place. Many organizations that help victims of rape strongly encourage these women to report their rapes to the local authorities. If a rapist is wandering the streets free, he is a danger to the community. Not only could he harm others, but he has done something wrong and ought to be held accountable. But furthermore, the victim still needs to practice the virtue of justice and duly report to the proper authorities her rape. One aftercare organization put it best when it stated, “Additionally, rape victims can feel a sense of closure when the rapist is brought to justice and convicted accordingly.” But why do these women feel a sense of closure? St. Thomas Aquinas gives a clue to this when he states, “Consequently, it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is “that which makes subject good,” it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good, either simply or in some particular respect” (Summa Theologica, I-II, 92, 1). The idea is simple: these women feel a sense of closure because they have done the good.
The simple reality is that HR 36, when it comes to the subject of rape and abortion, is trying to prevent women and abortionists from abusing the law. If the law contains a rape exception to the extent that Representative Ellmers is advocating for, then a woman may merely mention that the pregnancy was a result of rape, when it was not, in order to obtain an abortion. Or, the more likely scenario, the abortion counselor coaches the woman into merely saying it was a result of rape. Rep. Ellmers needs to keep in mind that the life of a child is at stake here; the need for a strict law is apparent when faced with that reality. Yet, her arguments are rather shallow when she proclaims her Catholicity and respect for the unborn. It is unreasonable to assume that the abortion industry will only apply this exception to victims of rape if language of the bill is passed into provides them an opportunity to abuse it as they have with so many other laws.
Indeed, it is important for the lawmaker to exercise the virtue of prudence when making a law. The lawmaker must truly look to the common good and how a law can lead citizens to virtue as well. No doubt, any rape exception is problematic on moral grounds. However, if there is to be a rape exception then both prudence and justice dictate that it be as strict as possible. Rep. Ellmers’ position obviously violates this task. Her “rape exception” would allow rapists to roam the streets with the potential to harm again without worry of being reported. This, simply put, is injustice.
Joe Kral has been involved in the pro-life movement since he has been in college. His MA in Theology was completed at the University of St. Thomas where he specialized in bioethics. From 1996-2003 he was the Legislative Director for Texas Right to Life. During that time he was also a lobbyist for the Department of Medical Ethics at National Right to Life. From 2004-2007 he consulted the Texas Catholic Conference on pro-life legislative initiatives. In 2006 he was awarded the “Bishop’s Pro-Life Award for Civic Action” from the Respect Life Ministry in the Diocese of Dallas. He currently is an adjunct professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas, teaches at St. Thomas High School, FTCM courses for the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston, and also serves as a voluntary legislative advisor to Texas Alliance for Life. He has been married to his wife, Melissa, since 2004 and attends St. Theresa’s Catholic Church.
