I don’t like abortion. I would not want my sister to have
one, and I would advise women against it under most circumstances.
But I oppose government intervention in their right to have an
abortion. Abortion, and other issues of personal morality, must be
free from government intervention.
If Sandra Day O’Connor, an abortion rights Republican,
retires from the bench, President George W. Bush will appoint her
successor. Considering the Bush administration’s policies,
this new justice will almost certainly be anti-abortion and could
make the difference on the court’s next abortion decision.
Many people are pleased at the thought because they think it is the
government’s duty to “protect human life.” But
while “protecting human life” is a noble goal, the
question of abortion is stooped in moral ambiguity and scientific
questions. People of different religious beliefs disagree on when
life begins, and scientists have not yet reached a definite answer.
If the government were to intervene and stop abortion, they would
be supporting one group’s definition of life over
another’s, and attempting to resolve a question of personal
morality that is often influenced by religious beliefs.
There are other issues brought up by government intervention in
morality. Homosexuality can be characterized as a morally ambiguous
issue, with people holding a wide variety of positions. But while
one might think homosexuality is immoral or acceptable, the fact
remains that it is an issue of personal morality that the
government should not regulate. Yet, in Colorado, religiously
conservative lawmakers attempted to ban laws protecting
homosexuals, thus specifically excluding the group from equal
protection. The Supreme Court struck down these statutes, in Romer
v. Evans, but it is interesting to note that the dissenters were
Chief Justice William Rehnquist and his conservative brethren,
Bush’s models for Supreme Court nominees.
Separation of church and state, a principle prescribed by the
Establishment Clause of the Constitution, is also in danger.
Ironically, this principle is one of the reasons why we cannot
accept the many religious arguments about abortion or
homosexuality; the government must be separate from religion. In
the landmark 1962 Engle v. Vitale decision, justices struck down a
prayer recited in New York schools. But since that landmark
decision, separation of church and state has been under attack.
Congress has pushed for an amendment permitting school prayer, and
the Supreme Court has endorsed backdoor religion by permitting the
use of vouchers for religious schools as a result of Zelman v.
Simmons-Harris. The “wall of separation” has become a
thin wooden fence.
The principle of putting the government in charge of moral
regulation has its own dangers. As its sphere of influence expands,
the government is more likely to harm any group or suppress any
idea with which it disagrees. Today that danger is more real than
ever, as Attorney General John Ashcroft seeks to obtain new powers
that will permanently harm American justice. His arguments are not
based on morality, but on fighting terror. However, it is clear
that the government’s power will similarly expand to moral
regulation. That is why Patrick Henry said “Guard with
jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who
approaches that jewel.”
Morality can often be personal and ambiguous. The abortion issue
exemplifies this difficulty because the decision to have an
abortion is a very personal one. But abortion is not the only
issue, and it is part of a broader principle that governmental
intervention should not govern personal morality. This principle,
which has served us well so far, is under attack from a variety of
forces, and unless we fight for our timeless ideals, we will be in
a perilous situation.
Bhaskar is a second-year political science student. E-mail him
at sbhaskar@media.ucla.edu.