I'm starting to get really tired of abortion dominating all of our discussions about anything even remotely political these days. I would do anything to read a newspaper article about the Supreme Court that doesn't mention abortion. PEOPLE, OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM DEALS WITH MORE ISSUES THAN JUST ABORTION!
Anyways, last night's West Wing episode introduced an interesting hypothetical: what if both of the major candidates in a presidential campaign had the SAME views on abortion? It would blow up the whole "moral issues" obsession that took hold of our last election.
Bill Clinton recently had some interesting points on this topic. In a speech to Democrats, he explained:
"So how come we can't talk about [abortion]?" he added. "Because we basically let political ads turn every player in this drama into a two-dimensional cartoon instead of a three-dimensional person."
Clinton also spoke about how most Americans fall somewhere in the middle when it comes to this issue. Much like the two candidates in the West Wing episode, most people probably think abortion is a "tragedy" that should be limited, but not illegal.
It still astounds me that people are so obsessed with an issue that was decided 30 years ago, and shows no signs of being overturned anytime in the near future.
While I like most of the comments you've made (esp. the Clinton quote), I think the curent concerns about abortion, at least as far as Alito is concerned, pertain not to a woman's right to have an abortion, but to the burden placed on her to inform other parties (e.g., a husband; parents). And that issue still falls under the heading of "moral issues" but it seems that that's the agenda the Bush White House has pushed such things (and Americans, out of nostalgia for the "good ol' days" or whatever, are hot and bothered by them).
What I don't understand is why conservative judges, like Alito, seem set on letting laws with risks that they acknowledge live. I understand that they don't want to step on the legislature's toes (and, these days, reluctance to do so earns any judge the title of "conservative"), but I don't understand why they refuse to declare unconstitutional a law that doesn't have any apparent benefits (other than reinforcing family values) but has huge potential risks (e.g., spouse/child abuse; conceivably even the death of an unborn child).
What's the point for those judges? Do you know (I'm being serious)?
Posted by: Travis Lloyd | Tuesday, November 01, 2005 at 08:59 AM