"While under the yoke of Roe v. Wade, which essentially prevents state and federal legislative bodies from directly prohibiting abortion for any reason or at any time, it is crucial that pro-life citizens continue to seek incremental restrictions on the practice of abortion which the courts will allow to stand. We must also seek new ways to test the court and focus public scrutiny on abortion on demand.
"Such restrictions have three main results. First, they may immediately save lives. Second, they continue the public legal controversy surrounding abortion, which in turn has a deterrent effect on abortion itself and thus saves more lives. Finally, they teach the public that the law has not yet finished speaking on abortion and thereby help thwart the undesirable instructional effect of Roe v. Wade and its progeny. In other words, such restrictions force the public to at least subconsciously confront questions such as 'If abortion is O.K., then why won't the government fund it?'
"In addition, the process of passing restrictions that enjoy wide public support, such as abortion funding restrictions and parental notification laws, help expose the pro-abortion side's true unreasonable position."
-- David N. O'Steen and Darla St. Martin
