I finally realized what has been bothering me about the Whig position on abortion. At first, I thought it reasonable to defer decisions about abortion to the states. It made sense to not legislate it at the federal level. Additionally, practically speaking there would have to be a massive change in public opinion to bring about a Constitutional Amendment. Then each state could determine its own law.
This would make it palatable to a certain type of Republican that may be interested in joining our party. Unfortunately, it would turn away a certain type of Democrat. Initially what bothered me about this is that it is currently legal in the country and we were proposing a regression of that legal status when we defer to the states.
Today I realized what the real disconnect is. The Whig Party platform on Social Advancement is that the Government should refrain from legislating morality. This I agree with 100%. The problem comes from the fact that we are enabling states to legislate morality, in the case of abortion.
Does the party platform on legislating morality only apply to the federal level and we would encourage it at the state level? Or are we to find some consistency in our position and say that we are against legislating morality at all levels of government? If the answer is the second position, then our policy toward abortion should be that we support the current legal status. This should apply to other situations of morality as well.
So what comes first, States Rights or Not Legislating Morality?
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Ah, the sticky wicket. I'm quite in the same boat as you. Legislation does not make people moral, whether it's drugs, abortion, prostitution, gambling. I think true freedom comes from having these things at your desposal; people demostrate morality by not choosing to participate. But government is going to be involved even if the aforementioned areas are "legal." The question then becomes to what extent are they involved. Take California's teetering towards pot legalization. The state government will set up some kind of regulation and tax tables to cover all aspects of its production from growth to consumption.
Bottom line is, I would rather see the states choose their own paths. I like to think that this compels people to become more active within their state's politics and actually pay attention to more localized issues. Perhaps that's wishful thinking. JS
So I totally agree with you except on the issue of abortion. For all others, it is clear that they only involve the person in question. In the case of abortion, there is the mother and the fetus. The issue is whether a fetus is allowed the protections (rights) of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Amendments. In Roe v Wade, Section 9 of the opinion, it is stated that a fetus does not have the rights of a person under the law. Therefore, no right to life and it is to be considered a part of the mother to determine what she will within some constraints. I agree with this and it should remain a federal decision that applies to all the States.
This, and the original post, represents a change in opinion on my part.
Right, but even under it's "legal" status, it's still regulated, in some cases, by statewide government programs (Planned Parenthood, eventhough PP does not promote abortion, it is an option). It appears as though the legality of some things determines its morality.
JS
John, could you state what you said another way? It has me scratching my head. When you said: "It appears as though the legality of some things determines its morality."
Why attach the word "legislate" to a judicial decision (Roe v. Wade)? Many would say, that's exactly the problem. The argument runs:
1. the Constitution says nothing about abortion;
2. it took a very expansive reading of the 14th Amendment to find a right to abortion (listen for the dog-whistle word "penumbra," although I think it actually came from Casey v. Planned Parenthood, same idea);
3. therefore the correct decision in Roe would have been, to leave it to the states.
Many would say, that would make a royal mess. People crossing state lines to seek abortion. Rich women (or those living near a border) can have legal abortions, the rest consigned to a back alley.
The answer would have been, to have this argument in Congress. If state lines are being crossed, and money is changing hands, it's No Problem At All to pass a law based on the Commerce Clause backed up by Necessary And Proper. Ironically, if polls are to be believed, the vast national majority believes in the Roe trimester-framework. So we might well have eventually come to the same result, but through a democratic procedure, not a judge pulling it out of a hat. Would have spared a lot of litigation, and constant litmus-testing of judicial nominees, etc.
As for the more basic point, can states legislate morality - if you believe in originalist American values, the answer is a ringing "yes." We draw most of our legal tradition from the English common law, where the sovereign (voice of the people in Parliament or legislature) basically owns our asses. Of course morality can be legislated - that's why in 2009, you still can't buy a beer in a shop in Massachusetts on Sunday!
- Exiled Sympathizer
So why doesn't Congress just resolve the issue by passing legislation legalizing the trimester-framework?
Shouldn't it be the States that legislate morality and not the Federal state?
Thank you, Exiled Sympathizer for hitting all the points I have been unable to convey to this point re: abortion.
As far as legislating morality goes; state law might dictate "blue laws" for booze on Sunday, but it doesn't stop people from drinking (we have the same laws in GA). You just buy more on Saturday in anticipation of Sunday or you go to a restaurant. JS
Post a Comment