Prohibition may provide the best, albeit imprecise, insight to the current state of the abortion debate in the United States.

The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Consitiution, which banned the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption, went into effect on January 16, 1920. Prohibition was repealed with ratification of the 21^st Amendment, on December 5, 1933.

The Prohibition movement had a long history in the United States, beginning in the colonies in the mid-1600s. By the beginning of the 20^th century the hostility toward the consumpution of alcohol had become widespread. Interrestingly, in the Presidential election of 1916 neither candidate made Prohibition an issue; echoing the recent Presidential election where silence was the rule on the Right-to-Life and Pro-Choice. The 1916 and 2008 elections were both thought to be close, and no canidate wanted to alienate voters by taking a stand on Probition or abortion.

After the 1916 election there was enough support for Prohibition that the 18^th Amendment was eventually enacted into law. Over 1,500 Federal agents were given the task of enforcing the law. Of course, the period of U.S. history from 1920 to 1933 has become notorious in our cultural mythology for speakeasies, Al Capone, the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, etc.

There was the support and political will to pass Prohibition, but the overwhelming majority of Americans still wanted to drink.

Let us be clear on three matters:

1. Life begins at conception.
2. Abortion is the taking of a life.
3. We expect government to protect those who cannot protect themselves.

A Gallup poll in May 2008 showed the following positions by Americans:

·         28% want abortions "legal under any circumstances"

·         17% want abortions illegal in all circumstances

·         54% want abortions legal in some circumstances and illegal in others (the poll did not clarify the circumstances)

Now, the majority does not always rule. The people would have never voted for civil rights, but the people’s elected representatives provided direction to the nation by their conservative understanding that the rights of the people had to be extended to all the people.

If there were the public support and political will to enact a 28^th Amendment making abortions illegal in all circumstances, my guess is that people would respond as they did during Prohibition when they wanted a drink, and the equivalent of speakeasies would arise. How many Federal agents would we need to enforce this law? 1,500? 3,000? 5,000?

Just because people do not obey the law and it would take resources to enforce the law does not mean we should not pass a law. Illegal drugs are a prime example of this. 

A CBS News poll in January 2007 showed that:

• 30% want to limit abortions to cases of rape, incest or life of the mother
• 12% want abortions allowed only in when the pregnancy threatens the mother's life

Given a choice between more or less government intervention in our lives, I would choose less. Normally, we would leave medical decisions to the patient and the doctor. The problem when it comes to abortion is there is a third life involved, that of the unborn child. And that is why government must intervene, to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The question is how should government intervene?

Perhaps the time has come for America to consider the following outline of a law regarding abortions:

1.       Abortion would be legal only when the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother. The health of the mother is understood to mean physical, mental, and/or spiritual health.

2.       The determination to approve an abortion would be made by the unanimous consent to three people: the mother, the mother’s physician, and a healthcare professional appointed as an advocate for the unborn child. The physician and the advocate should encourage the mother to consult with and seek the approval of the father of the unborn child, and as may be appropriate others such as her parents, spiritual advisor, etc. In cases where immediate action is required to save the mother’s life, and obtaining the approval of the advocate is impractical, the physician shall make the determination according to accepted guidelines for emergency treatment.

3.       Any individual or institution which is philosophically opposed to abortion should not be forced to conduct abortions.

This approach would:

1. Restrict abortion, including doing away with abortion on demand.
2. Minimize government intervention in our private lives.
3. Provide some protection to the unborn child.

In America those who wish to advocate for no restrictions on abortion and those who want all abortions to be prohibited can continue to present their positions.

This is not an ideal solution. An ideal solution would be that an abortion would never take place. We should strive for the ideal, but realize the practical aspect of life.