All of the candidates from the Democratic party running for president support the continuation of Roe v Wade, which provides for a right of privacy, specifically reproductive privacy. This in turn, prohibits any state from enforcing a law that prohibits abortion. There are two general principles that drive the Democrats’ position. First is the right to privacy issue outlined in Roe v Wade. Almost all of the Democratic candidates agree that this right to privacy exists in the constitution. One candidate does not use this principle to arrive at his position. Senator Joseph Biden sees Roe v Wade as an equitable compromise in a pluralistic society, but does not specifically agree with the Roe v Wade right to privacy.
The other principal upon which Democrats arrive at their position is from a position of civil rights. Again Biden departs from the rest of the field on this. His position is one of recognizing the right of the child while still in the mother’s uterus. James Gilmore, a Republican who recently dropped out of the race, arrived at his position on abortion using this same logic. All other Democratic candidates lament over the difficult decision that women must make when considering abortion, but believe it is ultimately the woman’s right to decide.
On the Republican side, the field is a bit more divided. Giuliani is the only candidate to support the concept of a right to privacy as outline in Roe v Wade. Among the rest of the candidates their position on Roe v Wade is driven by two general principals: the point at which life begins, and the Supreme Court’s authority to find a right to privacy. Huckabee, Romney and Hunter (and perhaps Tancredo) tend to arrive at their positions based on when life begins. Brownback, Ron Paul and Tommy Thompson tend to support the idea that the Supreme Court usurped the authority of the states on this issue. McCain has been all over the map on this issue, so I really don’t know what drives his position.
Given all that background, most of the Democrats and a few of the Republicans have at least chosen sides on the proper debate.
Abortion rights should not be based on the scientific knowledge of the day. I believe a position based on science is like building a house on shifting sands. The foundation is constantly changing, and our legal system will not be able to keep up with changes in science. This is what has happened with the recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the ban on partial birth abortions. The science that promoted the use of this technique was eventually discredited in the public arena, and so was banned. The Supreme Court has no business taking sides of medical and scientific debates. That should be left to medical professionasl and scientists. Joe Biden and James Gilmore have justified their positions regarding Roe v Wade on the science. Of all the candidates, these two are most wrong. Science may one day be able to make a fetus viable from the moment of conception. Then what?
To base a constitutional decision based on when life begins falls in the same trap as relying on science and medical technical ability. Those candidates that wish to rewrite the law to acknowledge the rights of the unborn starting at conception are basically on the same side as those that follow the science to justify their positions regarding Roe v Wade and abortion; they merely disagree on timing. From this perspective, Huckabee, Hunter, Romney and Tancredo (?) have come at this political issue from the wrong perspective. (There is a great article about how strongly Huckabee feels about conception being the beginning of life at Ethics Daily.) While I am sure they are well-meaning and driven to their position by deeply held moral and spiritual principles, (for the record, I agree with them on when life begins) the issue is a Constitutional issue and not solely an issue of morality.
Roe v Wade as a civil rights issue, is equally burdened by a reliance on the federal legal system to find some sort of harmony. But as a civil rights issue, most of the Democratic candidates and Giuliani side with the already born when compared to the not yet born. At its best, a position based on the competing civil rights interests of the mother and the unborn place one class of person above that of another. From my perspective, this is akin to racism. The unborn did not ask to be conceived, but was, and, therefore, is. Similarly a black person did not ask to be born black, but is. To prevent the interests of the majority from impeding on the rights of the minority is exactly what drove the drafters of the Constitution. So those candidates that use civil rights as the basis for their position are at least consistent in their understanding of the Constitution, albeit in contradiction to it.
Finally, those candidates that argue that the Supreme Court overreached its authority in Roe v Wade, are the most right. Tommy Thompson, Sam Brownback and Ron Paul have it right on this issue. The federal government has limited functions, such as the defense of the country, promoting interstate trade and protecting the rights of the minority from infringement by the majority. By finding a right to privacy that trumps the right to life, the Supreme Court over-stepped its Constitutional mandate. Roe v Wade put this country on the worst possible path on the issue of abortion. First it chose to let science guide its decision, and then overlayed a civil rights issue. This presidential election, as the previous one, will be important to whether this country will return to its constitutional roots.
[...] Read more ยป [...]