Roe v. Wade is not a case about abortion
We just went through the nomination and confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts. Now, we are in the midst of the pre-confirmation hearing media frenzy surrounding nominee Harriet Miers. As with too much of politics in this country today, the nominations of both candidates centered largely on the issue of abortion.
Something that has been bothering me is the way the media and the politicians on both sides of the debate have been oversimplifying the abortion issue. It is far too easy to paint the abortion issue as black and white with no room for any other opinions. You either favor abortion rights, or you oppose them.
But as with everything else, abortion is not that simple an issue. Even on the fundamental question of abortion rights, Americans are not so stupid or divided that we only hold one of two opinions. We hold as wide a spectrum of opinions on the abortion issue as we are a diverse people. True, there are those who see the issue in stark terms: that abortion is always wrong, or that it should be available on demand at any point in the pregnancy.
But the vast majority of us fall elsewhere on the spectrum of opinions. We think abortion is wrong, but that there should be exceptions in cases of rape or incest. Or when the woman's life is in danger. Or if the woman's life or health are in danger. Or that late-term abortions should be illegal. Or that only abortions pre-viability should be legal. Or that there should be parental notification or waiting periods imposed. You get the picture. We hold a lot of opinions and most of us do not see abortion as a black or white issue. We see a lot of grey. We know the issue is important, and we struggle with it.
Beyond our differences about abortion itself, the nomination of a new Supreme Court Justice raises issues of the Constitutionality of abortion. When we debate the merits of a new justice, we have to concern ourselves with different issues than those we face personally. Supreme Court Justices really don't ever have to decide whether abortion is good or bad, or when it should be legal or not. Rather, what Supreme Court Justices have to decide are issues involving the Constitutionality of abortion. Issues like whether the Constitution recognizes a fundamental right to privacy that encompasses a woman's right to abort. Or, if there is such a right in the Constitution, whether and to what extent it must be balanced against other competing rights. In other words, the Supreme Court decides whether the Constitution already protects abortion, not whether it should.
We shouldn't have to care about a Supreme Court Justice's views on whether abortion is right or wrong or under what circumstances abortion should be legal. When it comes to the substance of abortion rights, a Supreme Court Justice should be no more important than any other American. Their vote on the matter should count just as much as yours and mine. We have opinions and we elect legislators who share, as much as possible, our opinions, and they, in turn enact laws to bring our opinions into force.
What has been happening, though, is we have allowed politicians and the media to oversimply the abortion issue to the point of making any discussion of Miers' views meaningless. All we hear asked is whether she is pro-life or pro-choice. If she is pro-life, then she must vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. If she is pro-choice, then she must vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. But that is not a complete discussion. It is not even a real discussion. It is entirely possible for any American, particularly a lawyer trained in the complexities of our federal system, to hold views the media and the politicians would consider contradictory. You can be a far-left leaning liberal who thinks abortions should be available on demand in every town in the country and still believe that the Constitution does not create or protect such a right. Or conversely, you could be a far-right leaning conservative who believes abortion is a morally repugnant act prohibited by God that should be illegal everywhere in the world but still also believe that the Constitution's protection of individual liberty encompasses a woman's right to choose.
We have allowed the abortion issue to become so polarized, however, that there is no room for any such complicated debate. No political hopeful can afford to state a complicated view on abortion because we have spent too long allowing ourselves to be fooled into believing that the abortion issue has only two sides - right and wrong.
Something that has been bothering me is the way the media and the politicians on both sides of the debate have been oversimplifying the abortion issue. It is far too easy to paint the abortion issue as black and white with no room for any other opinions. You either favor abortion rights, or you oppose them.
But as with everything else, abortion is not that simple an issue. Even on the fundamental question of abortion rights, Americans are not so stupid or divided that we only hold one of two opinions. We hold as wide a spectrum of opinions on the abortion issue as we are a diverse people. True, there are those who see the issue in stark terms: that abortion is always wrong, or that it should be available on demand at any point in the pregnancy.
But the vast majority of us fall elsewhere on the spectrum of opinions. We think abortion is wrong, but that there should be exceptions in cases of rape or incest. Or when the woman's life is in danger. Or if the woman's life or health are in danger. Or that late-term abortions should be illegal. Or that only abortions pre-viability should be legal. Or that there should be parental notification or waiting periods imposed. You get the picture. We hold a lot of opinions and most of us do not see abortion as a black or white issue. We see a lot of grey. We know the issue is important, and we struggle with it.
Beyond our differences about abortion itself, the nomination of a new Supreme Court Justice raises issues of the Constitutionality of abortion. When we debate the merits of a new justice, we have to concern ourselves with different issues than those we face personally. Supreme Court Justices really don't ever have to decide whether abortion is good or bad, or when it should be legal or not. Rather, what Supreme Court Justices have to decide are issues involving the Constitutionality of abortion. Issues like whether the Constitution recognizes a fundamental right to privacy that encompasses a woman's right to abort. Or, if there is such a right in the Constitution, whether and to what extent it must be balanced against other competing rights. In other words, the Supreme Court decides whether the Constitution already protects abortion, not whether it should.
We shouldn't have to care about a Supreme Court Justice's views on whether abortion is right or wrong or under what circumstances abortion should be legal. When it comes to the substance of abortion rights, a Supreme Court Justice should be no more important than any other American. Their vote on the matter should count just as much as yours and mine. We have opinions and we elect legislators who share, as much as possible, our opinions, and they, in turn enact laws to bring our opinions into force.
What has been happening, though, is we have allowed politicians and the media to oversimply the abortion issue to the point of making any discussion of Miers' views meaningless. All we hear asked is whether she is pro-life or pro-choice. If she is pro-life, then she must vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. If she is pro-choice, then she must vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. But that is not a complete discussion. It is not even a real discussion. It is entirely possible for any American, particularly a lawyer trained in the complexities of our federal system, to hold views the media and the politicians would consider contradictory. You can be a far-left leaning liberal who thinks abortions should be available on demand in every town in the country and still believe that the Constitution does not create or protect such a right. Or conversely, you could be a far-right leaning conservative who believes abortion is a morally repugnant act prohibited by God that should be illegal everywhere in the world but still also believe that the Constitution's protection of individual liberty encompasses a woman's right to choose.
We have allowed the abortion issue to become so polarized, however, that there is no room for any such complicated debate. No political hopeful can afford to state a complicated view on abortion because we have spent too long allowing ourselves to be fooled into believing that the abortion issue has only two sides - right and wrong.
posted by Charles S. Russell at 11:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home