Comments on: Guest Blog: Abortion in Politics

By: Debbie Stewart

Debbie Stewart — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 01:45:10 +0000

I didn’t mean to “downplay” the role of judges but whether they sit on the Supreme Court or some other court, judges are to decide cases on the rule of law, not on their own personal opinions/agendas. It doesn’t discount their opinions/agendas and that’s why people get so “up in arms” about certain appointments. But historically, there have been more than a few instances where how a case was decided actually went against the judges own personal positions. Having served on a jury many years ago, I faced this myself. As the case was presented (and it was a murder case) it became clear that there was “reasonable doubt”. No matter how I felt about murder personally, I had to in fact put that aside and cast my vote on the jury based on the rule of law, not on my own personal feelings. It is no different (or it shouldn’t be) for judges. So appointing pro life or pro choice judges may or may not make a difference. Now there are some who argue that Roe v. Wade is “bad law” but it is a law that has stood now for nearly a generation. It well may be overturned one day but since federal judgeships are lifetime appointments, it may not happen for many years. stay tuned.
Debbie
BTW, I really appreciate the “thoughtful discussion” here. Thanks for hosting this….

By: Tyler

Tyler — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:21:32 +0000

My only concern with your comment Debbie is downplaying the role of the President of appointing justices. It is his (or her) power alone to do this. Obviously this has be approved by other powers but RoevWade will come back at some point and it will be the Supreme Court alone that has power to overturn, which is the result of past Presidents that can do this. I agree with everything else you have said basically, but the role of a President appointing someone pro life or choice is a key thing.

By: chad

chad — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:09:31 +0000

hmm….

By: Debbie Stewart

Debbie Stewart — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:59:45 +0000

Ric, thanks for your thoughts. And thanks too to Tyler for posting this and turning me on to your blog.
My own thinking is that abortion has more to do with personal choice and issues around poverty/economics than anything else. The only things I have as a way to back that up is “anecdotal” evidence rather than personal experience.
As for the personal beliefs of individual presidential candidates on this issue, one has only to look at recent history. I know of more than one person who ardently supported GW Bush, mainly b/c for them, if he were President, Roe v. Wade would be overturned and abortion would be outlawed. With less than one year left of his presidency and up until last year, a Congress that was controlled by the Republican party, not much has changed except for the appt. of judges who may or may not make decisions in that direction. (and who for the most part are apptd. rather than elected) Rates of abortion have declined slightly but they did during the previous admin. as well despite a polar opposite position on the issue at the admin. level. So supporting or not supporting a candidate based on this one issue alone, while your right, may not end up making much difference in the long run.
It is also bothersome to have people vilify Planned Parenthood always on this issue alone. Stop to consider how many abortions might have been prevented simply b/c PP provided birth control that prevented an unwanted pregnancy in the first place…… just saying….
Debbie Stewart

By: chad

chad — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:18:58 +0000

Ric… I really want to respond to this, but I don’t have time at the moment. Hope things are going well for you and maybe I’ll shoot you an email with some of my thoughts soon.