The judicial imposition of the Culture of Death will forever remain one of the great tragedies of American history. Abortion on demand was not made legal in this nation by an act of the people through their elected representatives, nor was it forced by a referendum or popular vote. To the contrary, abortion was legalized in all fifty states only when the United States Supreme Court invented a constitutional right to abortion and imposed its will upon the people of the United States. This arrogant act, rightly defined as the judicial usurpation of the democratic process, is not only foreign to the intention of our Constitutional founders, it is also subversive of the very idea of democracy itself. Now, in a shocking development, the abortion rights movement has published an absolute admission of its anti-democratic ideology. “What If Roe Fell?” is a major report just released by the Center for Reproductive Rights. The report features a state-by-state analysis of how state governments would respond to an overturn of Roe v. Wade. The report offers a fascinating look into the world of state legislation, and an even more fascinating look into the mentality of the Culture of Death.

Human dignity took a big hit yesterday when U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton declared that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is unconstitutional. This strike-down of the ban on partial-birth abortions came as a single federal judge defied the will of Congress, the President, and the people of the United States. Once again, the rule of law has been replaced by the rule of judges.

Nobel laureate James Watson suggests that it is high time we face up to the meaning of genetic engineering. Watson, it will be remembered, was one of the co-discoverers of the DNA molecule–the achievement recognized by the Nobel Prize.

The Culture of Death is the culture of the lie. The lies include a denial of abortion’s reality–the killing of an innocent human life. Yet, it is not just lies about abortion. The sinister untruth extends to euthanasia–the big lie about “the good death.” The so-called “Dutch cure” that has now found a home in America is not an issue in the ambiguous, uncertain future. It, too, is focused in the very concrete present.

The twenty-first century presents the human race with unprecedented challenges to human dignity and the sacredness of human life. Respect for human life and an affirmation of human dignity are inseparable. Where human life is not respected as a sacred gift, life itself will be debased and devalued–and eventually it will be negotiated away by the culture of death.

The root causes of war are often obvious, as in wars of conquest, wars for territorial expansion, and wars for the redress of perceived injury. Nevertheless, two young researchers now point to an ominous new potential cause for war–a shortage of women. In, Bare Branches: Security Implications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population [MIT Press], authors Valerie M. Hudson and Andrea M. den Boer argue that the dramatic shortage of women in Asian societies is likely to lead to violence on the part of “surplus males” that could lead to full-scale war. Their argument makes for compelling reading, and should serve as a wake-up call about the dangers of social engineering.

There has never been a more dangerous time to be a human embryo. Threats to the embryo’s survival include stem-cell research, experiments in human cloning, and recent developments in the science of selecting a baby’s sex. In an age without bioethical boundaries, the embryo has real enemies.

The Culture of Death is losing its grip. When Sen. Diane Feinstein [D-Cal.] took to the Senate floor to fight the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, she complained that the law would offer legal protection to “children who aren’t children.” Her concern was only with the woman seeking an abortion, not with the unborn child within her, so she saw the passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act as a direct assault on the logic of abortion rights. “This will be the first strike against all abortion in the United States of America,” she said. “That’s where this debate is taking us. That’s the reason for this bill.”

More often than not, the Culture of Death has been winning key battles over issues of abortion and the status of unborn life. Nevertheless, it now appears that the logic of death may be running out of steam. President Bush recently signed the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act,” and the unborn child is now granted federal protection against violence and murder. The Act, finally passed by both houses of Congress after an intensive effort, defines a “child in utero” as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

How should we make the case against abortion? Over thirty years after Roe v. Wade, pro-life advocates remain divided on the central issue of argument and strategy. This vital debate was highlighted in the January/February addition of Touchstone magazine, and it deserves the attention of all those who contend for the sanctity of human life and seek to bring an end to the scourge of abortion.

Historian Eric Hobsbawm has described the twentieth century as the age of “megadeath.” The past century’s assaults on human life stagger the imagination and defy computation. With symbols like Auschwitz, the Soviet gulags, and Cambodia’s killing fields, the century stands as a stark reminder that technological advance and moral progress often do not travel through history together.

Do you want girl or a boy? Throughout human history, expectant couples have been asked that question. Now, the question comes with a new twist–advanced technologies that can actually come close to guaranteeing a child of a specific gender. But this technology comes at an unacceptably high moral cost.