Abortion Laws and Our Jurisprudential Duplicity

Last Easter, Remee Lee, a young Florida woman, woke up lying in a pool of blood.  John Welden, Lee’s 28 year old boyfriend, decided he didn’t want to be a father. Welden, whose father was Lee’s OBGYN, told her that her tests discovered an infection. Welden falsified an amoxicillin prescription, used an orange Rx bottle, and filled the bottle with Misoprostol, a drug in the RU-486 abortion regimen. One dose of the 200 micrograms of Misoprostol induced fatal uterine contractions, which aborted the baby.

The case was heard by U.S. District Court Judge Lazzara. Under the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, Weldon could’ve faced a life sentence for first-degree murder. A plea bargain grossly reduced his charges. On January 10 Welden was sentenced to nearly 14 years. Judge Lazzara concluded, “[Welden] committed an evil act...he’s going to have to pay the consequences.”

In Welden’s, the father’s, case abortion is seen for what it is, “an evil act,” killing a child. In a woman’s case, our courts must celebrate that same “evil act” as an exercise of personal autonomy and freedom. Why the duplicity and double-mindedness? It reveals the iniquitous, contradictory political reasoning necessitated by our land’s radical pro-abortion legislation.