With the March for Life having taken place on Monday in various cities, the topic of abortion is once again in the news and on people's minds.
Mention the word abortion anywhere and you're sure to trigger an intense reaction amid the critics and supporters who are equally passionate about their perspective. It's an issue with people on both sides so deeply entrenched that many will never change their viewpoint or even be able to find common ground.
Yet, the issue of abortion was not decided the way that such social issues should be in a democracy. Regardless of your stance on the matter, it is better left for the states and voters to decide.
First, before Roe v. Wade, abortion was prohibited in thirty-three states (although abortion was permitted in these states to save the life of the mother). Yet, with a vote of seven Supreme Court justices in 1973, abortion became, essentially, a legal right.
The sweeping ruling mandated all states and voters to recognize a procedure the majority had not sustained up until that point.
Secondly, by authorizing the practice, the Court overstepped its boundaries. The Court had plenty of room to dodge the whole topic of abortion since its use of an ambiguous "right to privacy" involved some stretching.
Instead of executing its primary role of deciding the laws, it assumed the role of the legislative branch. A court (federal or otherwise) is to adjudicate the law, not invent it.
The Court would have done the nation a great service if it had regarded the abortion matter as a political question and left it to the legislative branch. Consequently, what needs to occur is a relinquishing of this power from the federal to the state level.
There are certain issues, including abortion and same sex marriage, better left to the legislative process. This way, various groups can interpret all aspects of the issue. Then, once a decision is made, it is more likely to be supported by a majority of voters.
In addition, if more issues are controlled by and decided in the states, there is a greater likelihood the state's laws will better reflect the opinions of the voters.
The counter-argument to this would be, "What if the majority of voters in a state favored permitting something such as segregation?" The answer is that the laws against racial discrimination were much clearer than the conclusion that a right to privacy guaranteed abortion.
Another example of why political questions should be handled on the legislative level deals with same sex marriage.
Given the ability of the courts to stretch and find rights that have remote connection, if any, to the legislative intent, then how can a person who supports same sex marriage but not polygamy be assured that any federal or state law permitting same sex marriage will stop there?
Once justices start legislating from the bench, there is no guarantee of knowing what our courts will interpret as law.
In the end, this hot button political issue should not be left to nine people clad in black robes. Political questions are best decided democratically at the state level.
Let the people employ their right to choose what they support when it comes to abortion.
Reach the reporter at: hilary.wade@asu.edu.
