The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision.
In making his pledge about Supreme Court nominees, Kerry denied he was establishing his own litmus test, an accusation that congressional Democrats routinely level against Republicans who say they favor appointing only judges who oppose abortion. The difference, Kerry said, is that the Roe v. Wade has become settled law since the court rendered the decision in 1973 and now defines a constitutional right.
For years Democrats have implied that abortion will be illegal if Roe v. Wade is overturned. This is not the case. Abortion was already legal in much of the country before Roe came along. All Roe did was prevent the law from being decided democratically in congress or through state legislatures. This is why it is such a hot button issue. People think that only the court can decide whether abortion should be legal. Why doesn't Senator Kerry propose a constitutional amendment to protect a woman's right to abortion? . He himself is worried that the law is tenuous unless certain people are appointed to the court. He won’t propose an amendment, because he will no longer be able to wield the issue as a weapon. Democrats would rather have the issue unsettled so that they can brandish it at every presidential election.
''Let me just say to you: That is not a litmus test,'' Kerry told about 85 women who turned out to listen to him over a continental breakfast in Des Moines. ''Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.''
Senator Kerry and many like-minded people speak of choice and freedom, but rarely for anything but abortion. Otherwise they want to micromanage people’s lives. They vote against tax cuts, education choice, and they even tried to limit our health care choices in 1993. Senator Kerry uses the word choice because people like to make their own choices. The fact that abortion is a hot issue means that people will many times vote away their other choices by voting for liberals, because they think abortion choice is in danger. Everyone needs health care, education and fewer taxes, but only a handful of people need to get abortions.
Though it won’t please everyone in total, there is common ground to be had in the abortion debate. Why not let people have abortions up until the time that the offspring could live outside the womb? Why should someone be able to wait 8 months into a pregnancy when that action causes pain for both baby and mother? Once it can live outside the womb, people can still put the kid up for adoption if they cannot or don't care to raise it. This will ensure that you do the least amount of harm to mother and child, while still allowing abortion to be legal. If Roe is over-turned then people through the legislative branch of government will finally be able to speak for the kind of abortion they want.
As long as Roe v. Wade is the centerpiece of gender politics, the issue will continue to hold the court hostage to nominees that have certain opinions. The Supreme Court is too important to be a one-issue entity. Those who insist that the court’s most important purpose is to weigh in on the abortion issue do their country a disservice.
If Senator Kerry has so much faith in the people who he is trying to protect, why does he not want the people voting on the right to abortion? Why not let the legislative branches pass laws like the founders of the constitution intended? Why must the court find some phantom right to abortion in the constitution? Because, Senator Kerry doesn’t care if anyone has a choice to do anything, but he certainly wants to use language to make people think that their freedoms will dissolve if his opponents win an election.
No comments:
Post a Comment