On the Judiciary
One of the great responsibilities of the Presidency is the appointment of judges to the federal and supreme courts. Recently our country has been observing an increasingly divided and politically charged Senate that supports and opposes nominees to especially the Supreme Court based on ideology rather than competence.
The most disturbing trend seems to be the determined efforts by some in the Senate to block Supreme Court nominees based solely on their perceived stand on abortion rights. The issue is carefully couched by abortion supporters in terms of protecting civil and privacy rights, but there can be little doubt that a nominee put forward by a conservative president can expect a ferocious and uncivil opposition from the abortion rights supporters.
Mine is a simple philosophy on judicial appointments. Judges are required to uphold the constitution of the United States and interpret the laws, not make new ones. However one may feel about the issue of abortion personally, the pertinent question for the Supreme Court is whether it is, or is not, a fundamentally protected right of individuals that cannot be infringed by any federal, state, or local government entity.
Roe v. Wade was decided, not based on specific language found anywhere in the Constitution protecting the surgical termination of pregnancy, but on a vague theory of a right to privacy used by the slimmest majority of activists then empaneled on the Supreme Court. Most honest students of constitutional law, including those who support legalized abortion, agree that Roe v. Wade was a decision without constitutional support. Basically, the justices who ruled to establish this brand new right to abortion did so out of their personal ideology rather than the strict interpretation of the constitution and the law.
Today we know a great deal more about fetal development. We also are advancing medicine to be able to save premature infants at much earlier stages. We know that aborted babies feel pain, and agree that the procedure commonly called partial-birth abortion is barbaric infanticide.
Personally, I support a Supreme Court review of the Roe v. Wade decision. I believe it is justified to begin a new national conversation about where the dividing line is between the mother's right to terminate her pregnancy and her unborn child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The entire issue of whether the unborn baby is an individual with the same unalieanable rights shared by the rest of us, or just the property of the mother who has sole power of life or death, needs to be revisited. I also believe that the unspoken tragedy of abortion occurs overwhelmingly in our poor and minority communities, which makes the practice even more morally repugnant. Finally, we as a nation must recognize that, legal or illegal, the practice of abortion is a tragedy that cannot be allowed to continue without some reasonable and practical solutions.
Therefore, whether or not the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, a key objective throughout my presidency will be to focus on providing alternatives to women with unplanned pregnancy. I will make sure that any woman or girl who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant will receive all the support she needs to bring the child to term and go on with her life. Whether through pre-natal care assistance, adoption services, day care assistance, parenting education, housing, or whatever the expectant mother needs to make the choice easier to make, the government will partner with any public or private organization who shares our goal of making abortion a thing of the past.
Finally, back to the Supreme Court. As a matter of law, the Court can and should find Roe v. Wade to be unconstitutional. But this does not mean that abortion will be immediately outlawed. It simply means that jurisdiction over such laws will be returned to the states, where each state legislature will be free to pass laws either permitting or outlawing abortion, or setting specific parameters within which abortion is allowed.
There remains much to be discussed and considered in our national debate on this topic. For example, if abortion remains legal, when in the 9 months can it be performed? If abortion is illegal, is it ever justified: for example, is abortion justifiable for cases of incest or rape, or if the mother is incompetent? Is abortion ever justified if tests reveal severe birth defects? Are there risks to the mother that should be taken into account, and if so, what are they? Are babies to be protected from conception? What about the use of contraceptives that are being seen to cause long-term detrimental health affects for women who use them over long periods of time?
I believe that Americans need to leave behind the old, divisive rhetoric of the past on the topic of abortion, and move forward to a reasonable and productive discussion of the real challenges and questions that must be addressed. And I expect to help lead that discussion through the office of the presidency.
The most disturbing trend seems to be the determined efforts by some in the Senate to block Supreme Court nominees based solely on their perceived stand on abortion rights. The issue is carefully couched by abortion supporters in terms of protecting civil and privacy rights, but there can be little doubt that a nominee put forward by a conservative president can expect a ferocious and uncivil opposition from the abortion rights supporters.
Mine is a simple philosophy on judicial appointments. Judges are required to uphold the constitution of the United States and interpret the laws, not make new ones. However one may feel about the issue of abortion personally, the pertinent question for the Supreme Court is whether it is, or is not, a fundamentally protected right of individuals that cannot be infringed by any federal, state, or local government entity.
Roe v. Wade was decided, not based on specific language found anywhere in the Constitution protecting the surgical termination of pregnancy, but on a vague theory of a right to privacy used by the slimmest majority of activists then empaneled on the Supreme Court. Most honest students of constitutional law, including those who support legalized abortion, agree that Roe v. Wade was a decision without constitutional support. Basically, the justices who ruled to establish this brand new right to abortion did so out of their personal ideology rather than the strict interpretation of the constitution and the law.
Today we know a great deal more about fetal development. We also are advancing medicine to be able to save premature infants at much earlier stages. We know that aborted babies feel pain, and agree that the procedure commonly called partial-birth abortion is barbaric infanticide.
Personally, I support a Supreme Court review of the Roe v. Wade decision. I believe it is justified to begin a new national conversation about where the dividing line is between the mother's right to terminate her pregnancy and her unborn child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The entire issue of whether the unborn baby is an individual with the same unalieanable rights shared by the rest of us, or just the property of the mother who has sole power of life or death, needs to be revisited. I also believe that the unspoken tragedy of abortion occurs overwhelmingly in our poor and minority communities, which makes the practice even more morally repugnant. Finally, we as a nation must recognize that, legal or illegal, the practice of abortion is a tragedy that cannot be allowed to continue without some reasonable and practical solutions.
Therefore, whether or not the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, a key objective throughout my presidency will be to focus on providing alternatives to women with unplanned pregnancy. I will make sure that any woman or girl who finds herself unexpectedly pregnant will receive all the support she needs to bring the child to term and go on with her life. Whether through pre-natal care assistance, adoption services, day care assistance, parenting education, housing, or whatever the expectant mother needs to make the choice easier to make, the government will partner with any public or private organization who shares our goal of making abortion a thing of the past.
Finally, back to the Supreme Court. As a matter of law, the Court can and should find Roe v. Wade to be unconstitutional. But this does not mean that abortion will be immediately outlawed. It simply means that jurisdiction over such laws will be returned to the states, where each state legislature will be free to pass laws either permitting or outlawing abortion, or setting specific parameters within which abortion is allowed.
There remains much to be discussed and considered in our national debate on this topic. For example, if abortion remains legal, when in the 9 months can it be performed? If abortion is illegal, is it ever justified: for example, is abortion justifiable for cases of incest or rape, or if the mother is incompetent? Is abortion ever justified if tests reveal severe birth defects? Are there risks to the mother that should be taken into account, and if so, what are they? Are babies to be protected from conception? What about the use of contraceptives that are being seen to cause long-term detrimental health affects for women who use them over long periods of time?
I believe that Americans need to leave behind the old, divisive rhetoric of the past on the topic of abortion, and move forward to a reasonable and productive discussion of the real challenges and questions that must be addressed. And I expect to help lead that discussion through the office of the presidency.
posted by Dan S. at 11:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home