By Steve Byas

In 1977, three little Girl Scouts, ages of eight, nine and ten, were brutally murdered while on a camp out at their campsite near Locust Grove, in northeastern Oklahoma. Eventually, Gene Leroy Hart, an escaped convicted rapist, was arrested, and charged with the murders.

But, since he was a Cherokee Indian, his defense lawyer and others played what would now be dubbed the “race card.” They asserted that Hart was framed – because he was a Native American Indian. Although evidence against Hart was quite strong, so strong in fact that one had to believe it was a frame-up to consider him innocent, the jury opted to find Hart not guilty.

Forgotten in the whole affair, it seemed, were the three little Girl Scouts. Two of the agents of the Oklahoma Bureau of Investigation that collected evidence and tracked down Hart – after he was at large for months – wrote a great book on the whole case, the title of which made the theme of the book obvious, Someone Cry for the Children.

I have long thought of this book in the debate on abortion. The openly pro-abortion movement dismisses the unborn children killed in the womb as just a “clump of cells,” denying their basic humanity.

Following the infamous Supreme Court decision in 1973, Roe v. Wade, which asserted that the right to kill an unborn child was somehow hidden in the “shadows” of the Constitution, there emerged two competing movements. One, which opposed abortion on demand called themselves pro-life, and those who favored elective abortion, calling themselves, pro-choice.

In the early years of the pro-life movement, the pro-lifers favored an amendment to the Constitution, outlawing abortion. This goal proved rather impractical. After all, if there could be produced enough political support to get two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, and three-fourths of the state legislatures to ratify such an amendment, it would be relatively easy to overturn legalized abortion.

But, of course, there was no reasonable hope of getting such an amendment added to the Constitution, so the pro-life changed strategy, and adopted an incremental approach. They would lobby legislatures to whittle away at the reasons that abortion could be legal. Among the most effective laws ever passed in this regard was one in which expectant mothers to have to see an ultrasound of their pre-born child, before they could go ahead with the abortion. This law, enacted in several different states has saved literally hundreds of thousands of unborn children.

Amazingly, the sponsor of this great piece of legislation later decided he had done wrong, because he should have refused to support any law short of total abolition of abortion, with no exceptions.

This incremental approach had its negatives, of course. While many were being saved, many unborn children were still dying in their mother’s wombs. But eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court did the right thing, and over-turned the issue to the states, where it had constitutionally resided before the Supreme Court decided to impose their personal views in 1973.

And, of course, being “pro-life” became a political litmus test for Republican political candidates, and there is no doubt that many were really not. For example, former Governor Mary Fallin ran for years as a “pro-life” Republican, but when she had a chance to sign a bill that would revoke the medical licenses of abortionists in Oklahoma, she vetoed it.

On the other hand, many politicians and many activists were quite sincere pro-lifers. For example, Tony Lauinger of Tulsa, the head of Oklahomans for Life, has dedicated his adult life to fighting abortion. I can remember back in the 1970s, when the pro-life view was quite unpopular, Lauinger would offer pro-life platform proposals at Republican State Conventions, and lose, and get booed. But, he persisted. Now, there is absolutely no opposition at state Republican conventions to planks opposing abortion.

Yet, for some who oppose abortion, Lauinger and others like him are now considered “the enemy.” We now have Abortion Abolitionists who consider the incremental approach, including laws like requiring ultrasounds, just examples of allowing continued abortion. Some even call them “pro-choice pro-lifers.”

Abortion Abolitionists favor sending women who have abortions to prison, calling this “justice.” While I understand their point, the practical effect of such advocacy is to strengthen the pro-abortion forces, who will use this effort as a weapon – playing on sympathy for women being sent to prison. I fear that this will result in a severe push-back to pro-life laws, and the defeat of pro-life candidates. It could even lead to a rash of state laws enshrining legal abortion as some sort of inalienable right.

Certainly this is a difficult issue, especially with the increased availability of abortion drugs being sent through the mail. There are no abortion clinics in Oklahoma, as they have all been shut down by state law. But these baby-killing pills can be sent directly to women who want to kill their unborn child. Surely, the Oklahoma Legislature could pass a law that would severely curtail this practice. Of course, just like laws against murder, there would still be some illegal abortions, but more babies could be saved from the deadly effects of these pills.

But even if such a law sending women to prison could pass, there would be many district attorneys who would refuse to prosecute under the law. I cannot imagine getting a jury of 12 men and women who would vote to convict.

When I point out to Abortion Abolitionists that this push to incarcerate women would actually hurt the cause against abortion, and lead to more unborn being killed, the response I almost always get is, “Yes, but it is justice.”

So, what are we trying to accomplish here? Save more unborn babies or satisfy some desire for justice?

As I said, I understand the point of these Abortion Abolitionists. But, I have a question, for them and our readers. Will Someone Cry for the Babies?