Philly.com | Neutralizing the abortion issue:
THE U.S. Constitution's express provision for amendment requires strong and broad popular support for change.However, if a mere five of the nine justices of the Supreme Court agree, a major change can occur without popular support. In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the court changed the Constitution when it created a right to abortion.
It did so under the guise of interpretation despite the absence of any direct supporting text. Since Roe, conservatives have sought to reverse that change by pushing for the appointment of justices believed to be against abortion. Liberals have pushed equally as hard for justices who are expected to support an abortion right.
This op-ed piece starts off well. I don't know whether the writer is pro-choice or pro-life, but he's totally correct in his assessment of the Roe and Doe decisions. The text of the Constitution as it is written just doesn't support the "right" to abortion that the Court created. We can argue about whether or not abortion should be a Constitutional right, but the simple fact is that the current text of our Constitution doesn't support it.
It is unlikely that any nominee can be found who does not already have a position on abortion, and we might well question the suitability of anyone who doesn't.It's very refreshing to see this sentiment in print. Of course any possible nominee will have an opinion about abortion. How could he or she not have an opinion? Personally, if someone tells me that he/she has no opinion about abortion, I am seized by a powerful impulse to check for brainwave activity....
However, one's opinion of abortion should not be a factor in the judicial confirmation process. As long as a nominee has demonstrated a knowledge of the law and a commitment to judge it fairly, then those points should be all that matters.
The battle between liberals and conservatives over abortion has become the tail that wags the dog. Abortion is an important issue, but the nominee's views on abortion should not trump all other qualifications of the nominee to the court.It would improve the judicial selection process, and be far more democratic to remove the abortion issue from the judicial confirmation process.
Yeah, what he said!
Are you ready for the train wreck?
ONE WAY TO achieve this goal would be by proposing a constitutional amendment that either affirms or negates a right to abortion. Our nation is deeply divided over this issue, and it presents numerous subsidiary issues that are more appropriately dealt with by a legislative body rather than a court.The issue of whether and under what conditions abortion should be permitted or prohibited is complex. Various polls have shown a wide variety of public opinion regarding late-term abortions, abortions for sex selection, parental approval or notification, public funding and waiting periods. All of these questions are more appropriate for consideration as matters of public policy by a legislature than as matters of constitutional law by a court.
A 5-4 vote of the Supreme Court is less likely to reflect the will of the people on this issue than is the vote of a representative body after open deliberation.
And a democratically reached decision is more likely to find public acceptance than a closely decided court decision. So maybe it's time to consider the constitutional option.
As nice as the idea sounds, a Constitutional amendment on abortion isn't going to happen any time soon....
The Founders set the bar for amending the Constitution very high. This was a deliberate choice. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so it should be hard to change it. As much as I would like to see a Constitutional amendment that protects all human life, we don't have the support for it yet. And frankly, no matter what NARAL tries to tell you, there's even less support for a Constitutional amendment that would guarantee the right to abortion-on-demand.
The best way to resolve the "abortion issue" in our current political/societal climate is to overturn Roe and Doe, then handle abortion through the normal legislative processes. We'll see some activity at the federal level, but most of the legislation would take place in the states. South Dakota could ban abortion outright, California could sponsor free abortions in elementary school, and most states would likely fall somewhere in the murky middle. Partisans on both sides of the issue could continue to work on public opinion, and perhaps there would eventually be a broad consensus. I believe that advancing technologies and emerging truths will create a pro-life consensus over time, but I recognize that many people do not share my belief.
Am I 100% happy with that solution? NO. If I could close all abortion clinics with a snap of my fingers, I would do so. If I could shut down Planned Parenthood by dictatorial decree, I would do so. Any solution that allows women to continue sacrificing their children and their souls does not make me happy.
(Don't read too much into the above remark! Healing is possible after an abortion. With Jesus, all things are possible.)
The (in)famous Prussian politician Otto Von Bismarck once said that "Politics is the art of the possible." In other words, you can't always have what you want, but you take what you can get. Bismarck also said, "Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made." In this case, our laws will be stuffed with the chopped-up remains of our children. I hate it, but I don't see any way around it for now.
(cross-posted at Naaman the Ex-Leper)
Personally, if someone tells me that he/she has no opinion about abortion, I am seized by a powerful impulse to check for brainwave activity....
So am I. Which is why I - among millions of others - were shocked by Clarence Thomas's claim during his confirmation hearings that he had never given Roe v. Wade any thought, and had never discussed it (the decision was released while he was in law school - fellow students reported it was all they talked about at the time). The only thing worse than this blatant lie is the possibility that it might actually have been true - either of which renders him unqualified for the Court. Feel free to tell him so.