The Observer, April 27, 2007
Volume XXXIX, Issue 26
Abortion issue unsolvable through government
The constitutionality of abortion has been a hotly disputed issue in recent years. People have identified themselves en masse as either pro-life or pro-choice. While it is heartening to see the public mobilize with regard to an issue, it is more frightening when you compare the black-and-white stances taken. Steve Hudelson's letter "Abortion laws belong to the states" (April 20) made me increasingly aware of this problem. Rather than enumerate the multitude of factual inaccuracies in his statement, I will instead focus on the relevant history and reasoning of the Supreme Court's previous decisions.
In ruling on abortion, the Supreme Court has attempted to balance the right to life with that of personal autonomy. Personal autonomy was established in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut as the belief that a mother has the right to make decisions regarding her own body. "Right to life" protects both the mother and the unborn fetus and is primarily a religious question. Different religions have different beliefs in regard to when a fetus is comparable to a citizen: the Roman Catholic Church believes life begins at conception, while a predominant Jewish belief is that it begins at birth. Forgoing religious belief, the point of viability at which the fetus can live independently is often considered.
The landmark Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade did not strike down all legislation preventing abortion. Instead it attempted to draw a reasonable compromise between the opposing sides. It ruled that the defining point in pregnancy from which to determine restrictions on abortion is the viability of the fetus. In the first trimester, abortion cannot be restricted as the mother's right to personal autonomy has priority. Since viability occurs within the second or third trimesters, abortion can be restricted by law unless death or considerable harm could come to the mother. Subsequent cases later clarified the position that the Court took in the Roe decision.
Gonzales v. Carhart, the most recent decision involving abortion, was decided on April 18 of this year. In this decision the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 which banned partial-birth abortion with provisions allowing for its use in the preservation of only the mother's life. Previously, provisions to protect the mother's health were also required. The integrity of this decision with such a split court can be called into question. If nothing definitive was to be decided, why did the Supreme Court agree to hear the case in the first place? The new outcome can be attributed to the recent change in the composition of the Court with the replacement of Sandra Day O'Connor with Samuel Alito. The 2000 case of Stenberg v. Carhart ruled in favor of allowing partial-birth abortion stating that preventing it "impose[d] an undue burden on a woman's decision." While such change in composition is to be expected, I worry that not enough attention will be paid to precedence set by previous cases, as stated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent.
I believe that the abortion issue is unsolvable through the government. Positions on abortion are so entrenched in religious sentiment that no compromise seems available. Without room for compromise, total victory cannot be achieved by any ideology. While I personally find the idea of abortion repulsive, I believe more strongly that everyone has the individual right to make such a private, moral decision. Some may see the Roe decision as appallingly one-sided, but I see it to be an adequate compromise. To negate this decision and put the issue to democratic process would only be submitting it to the "tyranny of the majority." If we are ever to reach any finality, it is imperative that those of all viewpoints make an effort to understand the issue. It is in this I believe we can all agree.
A more in-depth version of this article is available at http://filer.case.edu/gce4/Abortion-uncut.doc.
Evans is a freshman Polymer Science and Engineering major. He enjoys sleep and dislikes shoes.
