Last Tuesday the right-to-lifers won a big battle. The Senate gave up its hope of passing legislation that would permit Medicaid to pay for the abortions of women who were victims of rape or incest and couldn’t afford to pay themselves.

Hurray for the right-to-lifers!

Now these women will be able to carry a baby they had not planned for and most likely didn’t want. Does it matter that they have already suffered through a horrifying experience?

Apparently not. Now they also will have the pleasure of watching their stomachs grow with the child of a man they can only feel the utmost of disgust for.

But we are saving a human life! That’s got to be worth the added suffering these women will be forced to live with. At least according to Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.) insisting that “a rape is a terrible thing, but abortion is worse…. The first injustice lasts nine months; the second injustice ends a life.”

Well, well, well! I, for one, am quite impressed by Rep. Hyde’s compassion for an unborn fetus. But what about his feelings for a woman who has been raped?

His well thought out statement apparently shows that he believes the horrors in the woman’s mind will suddenly disappear once the child is born. That would be nice. Too bad it isn’t true.

I find it hard to believe that a woman who has been raped will ever truly forget the terror of rape—let alone in nine months. True, she may never really be sure about her decision to choose abortion, but at least it would be her own choice.

Here’s one more valuable insight from Rep. Hyde. “That baby hasn’t committed rape. Must the child bear the stigma of the rape?” Although I can’t understand his choice of the word ‘stigma,’ I do see his point. Why should the child have to die because of someone else’s actions? But this too becomes hard to define, for those who oppose this view argue that if the abortion is completed within the first few months the fetus is not yet considered a child. I don’t even want to get into that subject.

Regardless, a point that both sides must consider is the chance that a child will be brought into a world by a mother who doesn’t want it. Do you want to raise the child of a man who raped you or your wife? Is it possible that the mother of this child won’t have any bad feelings about raising the offspring of the man who raped her? Will this child receive the same upbringing as one that is conceived through love?

Yes, there is a good chance that a compassionate mother will be able to raise the child in the same way as any other child. At least outwardly. But consider that woman’s inner feelings.

Everyday of her life she will look at that child and be reminded of her rape. I do not believe that any woman should be forced to live in this scenario for the rest of her life.

Of course, she could give the child up for adoption. That is assuming the child is born without serious birth defects that would affect its attractiveness to potential adopting parents. But even giving it up for adoption has one serious drawback.

When a child is conceived in love the mother feels her body change and watches her stomach grow with joy. But when a woman is carrying the child of the man that raped her does she feel that same joy? More likely is that she feels revulsion and disgust that she is being forced to carry the baby of the man who violated her body and mind.

The legislation that could have saved many women from this additional suffering was shot down by the House and Senate. Even if it had passed, it would have been vetoed by President Reagan. It’s kind of sad that the decisions for all women who wouldn’t be able to afford an abortion are being made by people—the majority of whom are men—who could afford an abortion if the victim was a member of their family.

Rep. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) sheds the final light on this subject by saying that Congress has “made income and economic status the basis by which women contend with the aftermath of rape or incest, as if falling victim to those crimes were not degrading enough.”