Understanding Roe v Wade
There is a strong possibility that President Bush will nominate one or more candidates to fill Supreme Court vacancies during the remainder of his presidency. In anticipation of this event I believe that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should consider asking the future nominee(s) to fully elaborate on his/her understanding of Roe v Wade in order to ascertain the candidate’s fitness to serve on the highest court in the land.
A thorough reading of Roe inescapably leads to the understanding that the ruling permits a woman to determine the outcome of her pregnancy. On the other hand, it is also inescapable that the ruling does not permit a pregnant woman to use the excuse of her pregnancy to compel a father into unwanted parenthood any more than the excuse of that same pregnancy can be used by another party to force her into a condition of unwanted parenthood.
Roe states that a non-viable fetus enjoys no intrinsic value that would force one sex into the condition of unwanted parenthood. Any Supreme Court nominee who fails to understand that the same non-viable fetus has no more standing to force the other sex into unwanted parenthood is clearly not fit to serve on the Supreme Court, by virtue of his/her lack of understanding of, or disregard for, both Roe and America’s judicial ideal of “equal justice under the law”.
It is incumbent upon all members of the Committee, the senators who will vote for or against a candidate's submission to the full Senate, to stand firmly behind the constitutional doctrine of equal protection for all citizens of the United States. By closely questioning the candidate(s) and by insisting on clear responses that leave no doubt where the candidate(s) stands regarding this critical matter, the Senate Judiciary Committee members will assist in furthering the correct application of Roe as well as demonstrate their adherence to the principle of equal protection contained in the constitution. And should any candidate fail to express full support for the equal protection doctrine in the realm of reproductive rights as it applies to fathers Judiciary Committee members must vote against confirmation.
A thorough reading of Roe inescapably leads to the understanding that the ruling permits a woman to determine the outcome of her pregnancy. On the other hand, it is also inescapable that the ruling does not permit a pregnant woman to use the excuse of her pregnancy to compel a father into unwanted parenthood any more than the excuse of that same pregnancy can be used by another party to force her into a condition of unwanted parenthood.
Roe states that a non-viable fetus enjoys no intrinsic value that would force one sex into the condition of unwanted parenthood. Any Supreme Court nominee who fails to understand that the same non-viable fetus has no more standing to force the other sex into unwanted parenthood is clearly not fit to serve on the Supreme Court, by virtue of his/her lack of understanding of, or disregard for, both Roe and America’s judicial ideal of “equal justice under the law”.
It is incumbent upon all members of the Committee, the senators who will vote for or against a candidate's submission to the full Senate, to stand firmly behind the constitutional doctrine of equal protection for all citizens of the United States. By closely questioning the candidate(s) and by insisting on clear responses that leave no doubt where the candidate(s) stands regarding this critical matter, the Senate Judiciary Committee members will assist in furthering the correct application of Roe as well as demonstrate their adherence to the principle of equal protection contained in the constitution. And should any candidate fail to express full support for the equal protection doctrine in the realm of reproductive rights as it applies to fathers Judiciary Committee members must vote against confirmation.
posted by Steve at 1:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home