Roe-v-Roberts?

As the senate prepares to put its worst foot forward on national TV in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, it may be appropriate to return to the topic I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, abortion. (Return to my May 24 post, “Political Questions” for a quick review.) Whether the situation regarding John Roberts' appointment pivots on the issue is keeping the left-wing media agitated: Time for Roe to go?

Some pundits are predicting a relatively straight-forward confirmation process for John Roberts. He appears exceptionally qualified. He went to the correct school. He’s been cited by many observers as able to render judgments on the law rather than imposing an overlay of his own opinions. He’s even clerked for the Chief Justice. The proper squares have been filled and it looks as though the President has made a good choice. Hopefully there will be no illegal alien nannies in the background. It seems that a goodly number of senators from the left side of the aisle have recognized that they will look a bit too obstructionist if they get muddy in the questioning.

But, there are still a couple who haven’t gotten the word. Kerry Demands Roberts' SF-180 Good ol’ John “I voted for it before I voted against it” Kerry wants to review everything that the nominee for the court has ever touched on the off-chance that something incriminating might show up. John is probably pretty familiar with the idea of stuff being hidden in records. One need only return to those thrilling days of 2004 to recall the convoluted efforts of the good senator to avoid signing an SF-180 to provide for total and complete release of his military records. And, then there is the current lawsuit by Kerry’s team against the folks that compiled a documentary video of his own words in various public forums accusing his nation’s military of atrocities and war crimes. Stolen Honor Yep, John knows how incriminating stuff can come back to haunt you.

I’m betting there will be a lot of questions regarding John Roberts views on Roe-v-Wade. Everyone’s got an opinion, of course. But, how many of us can stand back and objectively determine the question for the court that will emerge? Here’s my take on it:

The essential question is what the role of government is. It shouldn’t be a biological issue such as “when does life begin,” but rather it should be a question of what the Constitution requires of government when exercising power delegated by the people. Only if the issue is isolated from the emotional language of babies and bodies and personal choices, will it be possible to bring some semblance of logic to the issue.

Is the role of government in a free society one of interposing legislation between a woman, her family and her physician to restrict her actions? Is it reasonable to have politicians making medical decisions based on their personal morality?

Or, is the role of government one of protecting the helpless? Should government intervention be allowed to preserve a life which would be endangered? Isn’t that a basic function of all governments?

The language of political questions is always telling. Note that those who favor banning of abortion call their position, “pro-life”. But, the opposition doesn’t label themselves as “anti-life” or even “pro-death”! That wouldn’t work. They call themselves “pro-choice”. It’s always more marketable to be for something than against it. The anti-abortion crowd counters with a campaign to “choose life,” even though they seek to pass laws making the wrong choice a felony.

Public policy in a representative democracy doesn’t get made without overwhelming support. Polling of attitudes on abortion consistently demonstrate that such support doesn’t exist on either side. The pro-life/pro-choice balance hovers very close to 50-50. Extreme or inflammatory positions such as the late-term or so-called partial-birth abortion skew the results, but in most of the population the policy preference runs to limited government action. In fact, even the most ardent pro-life folks will acknowledge that if they achieve their goal of a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, they really won’t influence much of a change in behavior.

So, in the coming months we’ll be entertained, (I use the term loosely) by the Senate angels dancing atop the pin of Roe-v-Wade. They will try to mobilize their political bases and emphasize their staunch credentials for life or choice. They will posture and pontificate, and in the process will undoubtedly damage the reputation of John Roberts. In the end he will be confirmed. And, in the end, he will be highly unlikely to move the question of abortion in America one way or the other single-handedly.