2.19.2007

While it will come as no great surprise to anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis that I have issues with abortion, it might come as a surprise to hear that I am opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade.

Today, Presidential hopeful John McCaine said he favors overturning the 1973 ruling that made abortion a legal choice for women in this country. He also stated that he would want to appoint more justices that will “strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench.”

Okay, great. So we do away with the freedom of choice and we put a bunch of old, white men on the Supreme Court to make desicions about what's good for all of us. Then what? What does Senator McCaine think is going to happen if he just does away with abortion as a legal choice for women? Does he believe that somehow people are going to stop having sex? Because that worked before 1973, right?

One has to wonder if Senator McCaine has done his homework about the lack of education and resources faced by low income women. How about the statistics linking child abuse to the age and education level of a parent? Or the statistics showing that if a child is born to an unwed parent, they themselves are more likely to become unwed parents? Need more? How about the fact that once a family is on welfare the likelihood that they will get off is very low. In fact, single parent households on welfare tend to raise children who become single parent families on welfare. It's a vicious cycle.

I am an advocate of changing the social structure and the education system to enable women to make choices that will empower them, teach them sel-esteem and help them not be in a situation where making the choice to have an abortion is necessary. Improce the education our children get. Put more money into programs that will mentor and help young men and women feel positive about themselves and their futures. Provide resources that actually help a single mother or father get up and out of the poverty they are in.

If you take the choice away from the women that need it most, you don't solve the problem, you actually make it worse.

The second thing I have issues with is the "strict" interpretation of the Constitution. Okay so....what we're saying here is that nothing has changed in the world since 1776. What kind of idiot actually believes that the strict interpretation of a document written in the 18th century is a good idea? Let's not forget, these were men who owned SLAVES for cripes sake. Men that thought women were good for nothing more than teaching or making babies. Men who actually believed that you were better than someone else based on the family you were born into or the color of your skin. Society was vastly different....hell, the WORLD was vastly different.

The freedom of the press: Placed in because the King of England would not allow anything negative to be said and could have someone put to death as a traitor if they dared to do so. Today: Needs to be upheld, but with common sense. Should someone be able to write whatever they want, even if it means people are killed because of it? Journalistic responsibility needs to be enforced as much as the freedom that allows them to exisit.

The Right to Bear Arms: Placed in because the only men allowed to carry weapons at the time were British soldiers who could kill you for anything and blame it on you. Today: I really doubt Thomas Jefferson was talking about allowing anyone with enough money to walk around packing a fully automatic assault weapon. Say it with me: Common Sense.

I could go on...."strict" interpretation of something, anything can lead to more problems than solutions. All you have to do is look at the Fundamentalist Christian Looney Tunes to know the truth in that. The freedoms we have are a wonderous thing. They allow us to have a society like no other on earth, for all it's flaws and all it's good works. Like anything, that society is fluid, ever changing. Our judicial system has to have the ability to change with it. More importantly, our judiciary has to be able to fulfill it's place in the system of checks and balances.

You get a bunch of Conservatives in the Legislature, stick just one in the White House and then pump up the Supreme Court with more of them....all we're going to end up with is a nation run by Pat Robertson and his buddies over at the "Sunday Come to Jesus" lobby. It's a scary thought.

4 comments:

knightjorge said...

Uh, DUH! What an idiot! There is a reason that we AMMEND THE BILL OF RIGHTS! That reason is an ever changing society and needs for that society.

I hate it when politicians think that they can play God.

Housewife said...

So well said.

"If you take the choice away from the women that need it most, you don't solve the problem, you actually make it worse. "


I love, I'm linking to it! It's brilliant.

SuperSnark said...

Beautiful post! Please forward it immediately to The Shrubs over on Pennsylvania Ave., with cc's to the Supreme Court.

Suzanne said...

"I am an advocate of changing the social structure and the education system to enable women to make choices that will empower them, teach them sel-esteem and help them not be in a situation where making the choice to have an abortion is necessary."

I could not have said it better myself. Thanks for the dose of common sense.