Disclosure 1: I am a man who will never have or perform an abortion.
Disclosure 2: I support abortion rights.
Disclosure 3: I did NOT support the Supreme Court's recent Kelo v. New London decision, which was a setback for the very concept of private property.
Disclosure 4: The Kelo v. New London decision will have much, much, much more far-reaching impact on American society than will any future decision that either upholds or strikes down Roe v. Wade.
And that's not even debatable.
As you may be able to tell, I'm a bit irritated. And it's because here in Washington, D.C., all four of our daily papers this morning had a variation of the same banner headline splashed across their front page: ALITO APPARENTLY WAS AGAINST ABORTION 20 YEARS AGO BASED ON SOMETHING HE WROTE ON A JOB APPLICATION WITH THE REAGAN-ERA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE NOBODY EVER STRETCHES THE TRUTH ON JOB APPLICATIONS, AND CERTAINLY WOULDN'T SAY WHAT THEY THOUGHT AN OBVIOUSLY CONSERVATIVE BOSS WOULD WANT TO HEAR, AND IT'S ABSOLUTELY INCONCEIVABLE THAT HIS OPINION WOULD HAVE CHANGED SINCE 1985, SO EVERYBODY ON EITHER SIDE OF THE AISLE MAKE YOUR JUDGEMENTS NOW!!!!!!!!
Jesus God Almighty. Folks, you may not like to hear it, but the issue of abortion rights is NOT the only issue that Alito will hear and weigh in on as a Supreme Court justice. It is NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE HE WILL HEAR AND WEIGH IN ON, either. The Kelo v. New London decision just passed was terrifically more important. So is Rumsfeld v. Padilla, which will wind its way back up to the SCOTUS soon. There will continue to be cases regarding the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, basic civil rights, the separation of powers, and states' rights versus federal government dominion.
So I don't really understand why this particular issue is the one issue that each side uses to roast potential Supreme Court justices into a crisp. We all caution people against being single-issue voters come election time; the senators who confirm or reject justice nominees shouldn't be single-issue voters either.
In short, I'm damn tired of the SCOTUS abortion debate being the single most important debate that determines the makeup and direction of the Court. It shouldn't be. There are many other issues that are more important to the future of the United States. They should not take a back seat to Roe v. Wade.
Is Roe important? Yes.
Has its importance grown way, way, way out of control?
God, yes.
Edited: nd
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Eric Olsen
very important point Mike, thanks! Why do you find some of these other decisions, in particular Kelo, to be more important than Roe v Wade?
2 - Michael J. West
Thanks much, Eric!
Kelo is more important than Roe v. Wade because Roe affects women who are able to become pregnant. But Kelo affects everyone who can own property. Men and women, those too old to have children and those in the prime of their lives. Even children themselves who have inherited property that is held in trust for them.
It's also got far more Constitutional impact than Roe v. Wade as do the other issues I mentioned. They all have to do with constitutional liberties, constitutional structure of government, and the constitutional guarantee of life, liberty, and property. Things that are specifically discussed in the Constitution. Abortion is not. And while I won't argue that there are points in the Constitution that implicitly relate to abortion, I think the explicit points are more important.
3 - zingzing
eww... kelo is nasty. especially with the city trying to charge back rent. don't worry mike, i can't see how this can go on... one day, some city is going to go too far, a new case will develop and this kind of crap will be overturned. (lucky for me, it has no effect in Washington state haha)
4 - gonzo marx
silly silly people...
didn't everyone get the memo that the GOP sent out...the ONLY "issues" to be discussed are "god, guns, gays and abortion"...anything outside of that would end knee jerk reactionary politics and actually involve rational discourse rather than emotional voting...
silly rabbits, Tricks are fer hookers...
and we all know what whores we have in DC, eh?
Excelsior!
5 - Matthew T. Sussman
Would aborted fetuses be able to be property owners? What does Alito think? WHAT DOES ALITO THINK!!??!?
6 - Eric Olsen
more importantly, would government entities be able to protect the iceberg lettuce industry using the tool of imminent romaine?
7 - Dave Nalle
Right on the mark, Michael.
And Gonzo, the GOP sent out that memo at the same time that the Dems sent out basically the same memo, because they sure harp on the 'right to choose' like it's the be all and end all of life on earth.
The fact is that even if Roe were struck down abortion would remain legal in most states and nothing would change for most Americans, and even those who live in states where it was restricted - probably only partially - could still travel to a neighboring state to get an abortion.
dave
8 - Michael J. West
I must point out, Gonzo, that while your James Dobsons and Dr. Lauras are celebrating loudly that Bush is nominating a pro-life justice, your James Carvilles and your N.O.W.'s are screaming equally loudly that anyone who doesn't like Roe has no place on the court.
Both sides are equally guilty of blowing this thing all out of proportion. And both of them reeeeeeeeeeally need to shut up.
9 - Natalie Davis
Hmph. Personally, Mr. West, I think the James Carvilles and NOWs can't scream loudly enough. That said, I do agree that the effects of Kelo are more far-reaching. Great piece, btw.
10 - Dave Nalle
But ND, isn't Carville just inherently more irritating than anyone on the planet, even if he's right on this issue?
Dave
11 - gonzo marx
Michael..your point is well taken... but the counterpoint is here...
the Article shows the GAO investigation results about the "morning after" pill... which was shot down in very unusual circumstances by political appointees form the Administration...
by making this drug available, you would see a drastic reduction in the number of unwanted pregnancies ending in abortions... bad for senate majority leader Frist's family business( they own quite a few abortion clinics)... but very bad for the GOP crusade against a woman's Right to choose for herself... it woudl remove the Issue almost completely...
so why did the Bush Administration shut it down BEFORE the scientific research was done?
good Question...eh?
Excelsior!
12 - T A Dodger
Dave,
You really think the right to control one's land is more important than the right to control one's body?
13 - Michael J. West
Dave,
You really think the right to control one's land is more important than the right to control one's body?
I assume you meant that question for me, T A Dodger, since I wrote this article and Dave said nothing of the kind.
But the question is both loaded and oversimplified in its present state. To the point that as it is, the question is not applicable here.
14 - T A Dodger
Ah, I apologize for misdirecting the question.
The question is accurate:
Overturning Roe v. Wade would severly diminish a woman's right to control her own body.
Kelo was an aweful decision that severly diminished people's property rights.
If you say Kelo is worse than on overturning of Roe v. Wade, you are saying that control over one's property is more important than control over one's body.
15 - Alethinos
I don't really see this as an EITHER/OR situation. Both Roe and Kelo are potential wreckers of personal liberty. It is what's behind these movements that is most frightening: the bizarre marriage of rich Republicans with Christian fundamentalists, the union's only purpose to further both their aims. Later, when they've got what they want they'll turn on one another for the final contest...
We can only hope that the country is beginning to truly awaken to Bush & Co. and their wicked ways...
Alethinos
16 - Dan
Unfortunately for property owners, they can't control their property by simply ingesting a pill.
17 - Anthony Grande
Comment 2, Michael, great point!!!
18 - Dave Nalle
Yah, that comment threw me for a minute. Thatr said, I think that Michael's basic point is valid. A lot more people will likely be impacted by Kelo than by Roe being overturned in the long run. As I said earlier even if Roe is overturned abortion won't go away for any but a very few people, whereas if Kelo marks the beginning of a trend we're all well and truly screwed. The right to hold property is fundamental to liberty.
Dave
19 - RedTard
Roe is a less important decision because it involves one unique situation, pregnancy. There is no slippery slope argument to be had. One living being growing inside of or attached to another doesn't happen very often (could have some implications to Siamese twins perhaps)
Kelo on the other hand is a dangerous and broad attack on personal property rights that could be used as a precedent in a variety of other cases.
20 - RedTard
Great post though! Reading through the comments I see how true your post was. Abortion is one of those issues that we can't make reasonable compromises because of the loony extremists on either side.
I think a lot of people would be satisfied if we compromised by banning late term abortion and allowing the morning after pill (leave parental notification to the individual states). Most people don't seem to have a problem getting rid of a ball of cells but get squeamish at the thought of killing a fully developed baby. Late term abortion are very rare anyway and the law would need exceptions for health, deformities, etc., but the compromise would solidify majority support for the procedure.
21 - Dave Nalle
Stop being sensible, RedTard. No one loves a non-extremist.
Dave
22 - Michael J. West
Thanks for all the comments everyone.
T A Dodger, thank you for the clarification as well. And here are the reasons that I still feel that your question is overly simplistic.
(1) Roe was not just about a woman's control of her body. It was also about an embryo or fetus's life. And it raises a number of other issues that must be resolved before the case can completely be resolved: Does life begin at conception? If not, when does it begin? Is an unborn baby simply an extension of its mother's body? If so, when does it cease to be? If not, does its mother have the right to treat it like one? Does a mother have absolute custodial right over an unborn baby? If so, do those rights include the right to terminate the life of that unborn baby?
There are questions in there that we don't have a solid, rational/scientific answer for. And until we do, the case cannot really be resolved.
(2) As I said, Roe pertains only to women who are able to get pregnant. Kelo pertains to women, men, children, young and old, fertile and not.
(3) Finally, as Dave Nalle points out (correctly, too - and I don't agree with Dave very often, so you know I'm not just bullshitting here), overturning Roe v. Wade would NOT severely diminish a woman's right to control her own body. The popular belief that overturning Roe would make abortion illegal, is wrong. It would simply allow states to make abortion legal or illegal. At least 30 states would keep abortion legal, and a woman in one of the other (at most) twenty states could still receive an abortion in one of the 30.
23 - Michael J. West
I don't think I finished that last thought....
the difference in my reason number 3 is that under Kelo (and even not under Kelo), nobody can very well dig up a plot of land and move it to another state in order to maintain their right to control their property.
24 - T A Dodger
I understand what you're saying Michael, and maybe we're talking past each other here.
You seem to be saying that Kelo has a bigger impact by virtue of affecting a larger number of people.*
I think Roe affects a much more fundamental right.
Both of those things could very well be true.
In response to your number 3, some states are passing laws to forbid state and local governments from making the sort of land grabs that Kelo declares constitutionally acceptable. So hopefully Kelo's effects, like those of overturning Roe, can be limited by legislative action.
This is from the Washington Times:
A swift and dramatic backlash is underway in the states, several of which have already passed laws limiting the power of eminent domain. ...lawmakers introduced other legislation in both houses of Congress overturning the ruling at the federal level. ...leadership aides predicting it's not a question of if, but when, lawmakers sack the high-court decision."
"Sixty-eight percent of registered voters favor legislative limits on the government's ability to take private property away from owners. Public support for limiting the power of eminent domain is robust and cuts across demographic and partisan groups. Sixty-two percent of self-identified Democrats, 74 percent of independents and 70 percent of Republicans support limits.
*Of course... I'm really uncomfortable with this being used as a reason to say that any bad government action or individual crime is less important than another, since so many really horrible things disproportionately affect women or minority groups. For instance, I'm not ok with saying petty theft is a bigger problem than rape, just because rape tends to happen to women and theft can happen to anyone.
Also consider, to overturn Roe the court would probably find that there is no constitutional right to privacy. That would mean no constitutionally protected right to birth control, no constitutional right to make decisions about sex inside or outside of marriage, etc. The constitutional implicatins could very well be far reaching, and here in the south, the states would almost certainly not step in.
The states where women are most likely to be poor and thus have difficulty going to another state are the places where abortion would be illegal after Roe.
Sorry this post ended up being so long!
25 - Michael J. West
Also consider, to overturn Roe the court would probably find that there is no constitutional right to privacy.
That's jumping to conclusions, though, T A Dodger. And conclusions that are pretty far down the slippery slope. I think this debate really only works when we stick with the issue at hand.
You seem to be saying that Kelo has a bigger impact by virtue of affecting a larger number of people.
That was my number 2 point, yes, and it goes to Kelo's being more far-reaching.
You addressed my points 2 and 3, but you didn't address my first point, which I put first because I felt it was the most important: that Roe is not merely about a woman's right to choose. It is also about the life and death of an unborn baby. (Which affects, one could argue, an even MORE fundamental right than the woman's right.)