Observations on the world today.

Friday, February 20, 2004

Court to Hear Case to Reopen Roe V. Wade Personally, my private views of the abortion question differ from my political views. I think there are plenty enough options that almost no woman should ever need to have an abortion. However, in certain medical situations and in the case of women who may potentially be traumatized by the prospect of giving birth (such as rape victims) I can see why the option should exist. That is my private position. Politically, I don't think the government has the right to inflict either my private opinion or anybody's. For that reason, politically I support the right to choose.

But what I do not understand is the value of this case. McCorvey brought the original case on which the Supreme Court decided to legalize the option to abort, but the decision does not belong to her. To me, this is like if Rosa Parks was to say today that she actually preferred segregation and ask the courts to rescind Johnson's civil rights act. Or like Susan B. Anthony deciding that the world was better off before women had the vote, and deciding to file a suit requesting that the 19th amendment be repealed. McCorvey may have been instrumental in winning women the right to abort, but the right is not hers to take away from them.

And, again, I say this as a man and as a person who's personal philosophy is pro-life. So if I can see this obvious flaw in the case, it seems clear that any appeals court that rules otherwise is engaging in the very "judicial activism" that the republicans claim to abhor.
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?