In a high school health class, my teacher asked us to write a researched opinion paper on abortion. I hadn't really given the subject much thought, but eventually I decided that while I thought abortion was most definitely a bad thing, there seemed to be good reasons for keeping it legal.
I failed the assignment. The teacher told me explicitly, "You can't sit on the fence on this issue!" I took the paper to the administration, and they ordered the teacher to give me a passing grade. At 17, however, I already knew I was gay, and I felt awkward discussing the subject of abortion because I knew it wasn't something that was going to be relevant to my life.
Over the years my understanding of the debate has become more nuanced, but my position really hasn't changed, and until recently, I still wondered what business gay people had having an opinion on the subject.
Even though I recognize that a conservative person who opposes abortion is statistically likely to also oppose gay rights, I distanced myself from people and groups who made a habit of assuming that someone opposed to abortion was also anti-gay. After all, I know gay people who are opposed to abortion; furthermore, opposition to abortion is a legitimate ethical stance, whereas opposition to homosexuality is merely prejudice.
However, the Supreme Court nomination process has helped me to understand why this is such a crucial issue for the gay community. Roe v. Wade is not really about abortion; it is about a right to privacy.
Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal, recently explained it this way to the Gay City News: “Roe is the foundation for Lawrence [v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court ruling which overturned all sodomy laws in the U.S.]. The privacy right of what you do with your body that was the foundation of Roe is inextricably linked to Lawrence. If Roe falls, Lawrence could be in jeopardy.”
Roe, in turn, draws on 1965's Griswold v. Connecticut; you might recall that early in the doomed confirmation process of Harriet Miers, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) initially told the press that Ms. Miers had expressed her support for Griswold and believed in a Constitutional right to privacy. Shortly thereafter, however, Specter had to issue a correction that Ms. Miers had expressed no such support and he must have misunderstood.
This is why these rulings matter; the issue of abortion is a red herring. Conservative activists want these rulings overturned not so much because they care about unborn children (though I am not accusing them of insincerity, just ulterior motives), but because they stand in the way of the right wing's plans to legislate their morality for all of us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Well put. To me RvW is about privacy and the right to choose. It's neither pro- or anti-abortion, it's just protecting the individual's right to make decisions.
Wow, Courtney...I can't tell you how much your approval on this subject means to me -- thanks.
I agree that Roe is really about the right to privacy and not abortion. The way I see it, I don't care what people do in the bedroom so long as they don't kill innocents because of it. I am a conservative who does care about the unborn children. And the main problem I have with the right to privacy is that in Roe it is held as a higher value the right to life.
Me not type good today . . .
Andy,
Good post, I hadn't thought of it that way.
Which HS teacher asked you to write an essay on abortion?! I know it was only 1992, but sheesh, what a powder keg.
N: I don't remember her name, she was a long-term sub. The regular teacher was on the football coaching staff or something (of course) and went on leave for knee surgery or something, as I recall, and we had her for about six weeks, I think. (Postscript for the historically curious: Nathan and Courtney and I went to high school together. Aw.)
Yeah. I meant it as a compliment, but it was sort of backhanded, wasn't it? Sorry. : (
Well put, Andy.
Isn't the "privacy right" of the Constitution" a more blatant fabrication than the "proportional representation clause of the equal protection clause" you cited by Harriet Miers. If an actual right to privacy existed in the Bill of Rights, the argument would have grounds, but to say that government not being allowed to search your house without warrant is akin to government not being able to see that your pregnancy isn't terminated (with a warrant, of sorts) seems a bit of a stretch. If you were to go with an amendment in the Bill of Rights supporting the pro-choice or State-choice position, as a Constitutional scholar (lol) I would say you should look at the 9th and 10th amendments rather than the 4th.
Is that really how you think? Then FINE, LC, I hope you live in a state that formerly had anti-sodomy laws applying to both hetero- and homosexuals, and I hope the police bust in on your bedroom while your future wife is blowing you and drag you in the middle of the night to jail and then let's see what you think of a consitutional right to privacy.
Andy, I don't mean to be rude, but to paraphrase my second favorite tv series, I'm trying to think of a cruder way you could have put that reply to LC and I just can't. It was uncalled for even if his comment was somewhat questionable.
Thanks Esther! I'll just say that unlike the basic human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the right to privacy, as ritcheous as it may be, was not intended by our forefathers to be absolutely unbreached (privacy is not among the big 3). That is why they deliberately said "no search and seizure without warrant" rather than "the absolute right to privacy" To take down a crime family, bust a gang on a drug transaction, stop a terrorist attack, or save the life of an innocent human being, we are allowed, within reason, to consider the richeousness of such a breach of rights. I don't know where you get the idea that I'm pro-sodomy law, but I'm not!
"Nothing brings more bondage than too much liberty" -Benjamin Franklin
I won't apologize. You don't have to live in a country where people want to criminalize your relationships. A right to privacy is an intrinsic, elemental part of the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It's an essential protection.
Andy, and neither do you. It's called moving . . . But seriously, I did not ask you to apologize for your beliefs and sentiments. In fact, I did not ask you to apologize. I merely commented on the manner in which you stated your sentiments. Which, incidentally, is not a manner that inclines people to agree with you at all. It rather inclines people to be annoyed and wonder why you are not a very good listener.
You know, not to sound lecture-ish, but everyone who has beliefs holds to them very strongly. The only way to change the minds of those who you think are wrong is to give them respect for at least thinking about the issues at hand.
I don't see how debating the importance of "privacy rights" is offensive to gays specifically. Once again, it seems that your homosexuality is stirring passion in your argument. A good debate is without passion, as passion obstructs reasoning.
The country simply doen't want to "criminalize your relationships". If you and your partner went to city hall and declared yourselves married, you would not have an arrest warrant out for you. Perhaps when you applied for a government program this would occur, but the union is illegal, not the relationship.
Good question! I know it's Andy's place to reply to this comment, but the Constitution is to stop the government from prying further via the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment does NOT concern abortion, it is very specific in its concerns for a reason. There is no general right to privacy in the US, only implications set by specific laws and rights.
True that the US Const. does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court has long held that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, 4th, and 5th.
"I would say you should look at the 9th and 10th amendments rather than the 4th." That was in my first comment on this post, and I stand by it. If you are to oppose by the Constitution a federal ban on abortion or same sex marriage, look to the 9th and 10th amendments...don't abuse the 4th for the sake of political gain. The Constitution was well written. Personally I believe Roe should be struck down, because it is not the role of the federal judiciary to concern itself with abortion. It is for the states, as is gay marriage. That's federalism, take it or leave it!
Post a Comment