I can almost hear the folks at Planned Parenthood already churning out more of their "angry white male judge" ads in light of yesterday's 5-4 SCOTUS ruling upholding the federal government's near total ban on partial-birth abortion. (For the record, I am largely supportive of the work that Planned Parenthood does.)
Abortion is perhaps the most fantastically muddy political issue in American political discourse today. The only thing that polling data shows is that Americans are, by and large, quite uncomfortable with the issue of abortion.
That's fine. Abortion should make you uncomfortable. It should make you cringe a little, even if you support it. It's not a pleasant thing to contemplate.
Americans largely support legal abortion. However, when you start asking the follow-ups, you find that it's hardly unfettered access that they support. When it comes to available in the case of rape or incest, or to protect the health or life of the mother, Americans seem to view abortion as an appropriate option.
When it comes to the issue of convenience - whether abortion should be available to terminate pregnancies that are simply unwanted - most Americans tend to bristle.
In other words, whether we realize it or not, we're performing a complex calculation that weighs the interests of the mother against the interests of the fetus. The health of the mother and the circumstance under which conception occurs appear to be the crucial variables in this formula.
These circumstances contribute greatly to the comfort that most Americans have in accepting the procedure as an unpleasant but sometimes necessary option. Considering that, and the simple fact that abortion is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, it surprises me that people are shocked to find that different courts may come to different opinions on the issue.
Did liberals actually think they were going to win every major abortion ruling from here to kingdom come?
Our nation's founders did not provide a clear answer on the issue of abortion. So if you support unlimited access to abortion for any reason at any time, perhaps the ultimate answer is to push for a constitutional amendment. I, for one, would be very interested to see how that goes.
Me? I think it would fail and fail miserably. Not only would such an amendment never secure the support of Congress, it probably couldn't get passed by 10 states. And I think most people who are pro-choice know that, which is why they have elected over the years to work through the courts, attempting to construct and reinforce the perceived right by cobbling together bits and pieces of other rights and by relying heavily on judicial precedent. For them, the courts have historically provided a better venue to secure their desired outcome.
Some liberals seem to think that because they got
Roe v. Wade in front of a Supreme Court stacked in their favor, abortion should never be reconsidered by any court in the future. We win, no rematches allowed. Every judge should forever be bound by the pontifications of noted judicial centrist Harry Blackmun.
Like I said, if you want to enshrine the notion of abortion on demand, put it in the Constitution. But failing that, both sides have to accept that the issue is very much a pendulum, and occasionally will swing from one side to the other.
In modern times, America has never had a Supreme Court as conservative as the Warren Court was liberal. The Burger Court was largely controlled by moderate justices, and Rehnquist Court never had the votes consistently on his side to truly be considered a conservative court. All three courts basically reflected the political mindset of the country that existing during and just prior to the time in which they functioned.
Accordingly, is there any reason to believe that the Roberts Court won't, to some degree, reflect the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 and the election and re-election of George W. Bush? And is that necessarily a bad thing? Or is it just the judicial pendulum swinging, working to balance and temper some previous rulings by its more liberal predecessors? Is it any great surprise that five Catholic justices appointed by Republican presidents would be a little less comfortable with abortion than some of their predecessors?
Goodness knows I slam conservatives plenty for their philosophical inconsistencies, but when it comes to abortion, liberals are huge hypocrites too.
The San Francisco Chronicle, in its
editorial today, asserts that "there is no reason why Congress, and now the Supreme Court, should be telling doctors how to practice medicine."
Really? So Congress has no business telling individuals in the private sector how to do their jobs? What if we changed that to "should be telling businesses how to set working conditions or wages?" "Should be telling farmers what pesticides to use?" Would liberals still be so supportive?
In their world, government should apparently be in the business of passing laws telling everyone what to do and how to do it, unless of course you are a doctor who performs abortions. In which case, government has no business getting involved.
Spare us. Nobody's buying it.
Setting these sorts of parameters is the job of government. It is government that creates the rules of the broader social construct within which we all coexist. That means business, education, the environment, and yes Virginia, even health care.
Government is supposed to be representative of the people, and the people of this country are profoundly conflicted by the issue of abortion. Given that, it should be no surprise that our courts are as conflicted on the issue as we are. That probably won't change for awhile, and you know what?
That's okay.
