when the levee breaks
13 January 2006 | Uncategorized | 1 Comment
This mp3 is from a great site that has several public domain recordings. This one is by Kansas Joe and Memphis Minnie.
Let’s break the levee: The Lexington opinion column in the December 10, 2005 issue of The Economist talks about abortion law in the US. The gist of the article is a (modest?) proposal that the US, particularly pro-choice Democrats, should let go of Roe v. Wade and put the matter to a vote of the electorate - currently that would happen in state legislatures. I don’t read the proposal as Swiftian, even though the title, A Heretical Proposal, hints that it is. For me, one of those Democrats, the arguments are compelling.
The article suggests that the never-ending conflict over Roe is destructive to the country (check), particularly so for its Democrat defenders, given that opinion polls suggest that most of the country favor a right to abortion in some manner or another (check), that, since Roe is based on a constitutional right to privacy rather than matters more central, the opposition refuses to see the law as settled (check), and that that in other countries, a popular vote, after long and difficult debate, has more completely settled the question (check). The more I think about this article, the more fascinated I become.
The battle over Roe has dominated the evaluation process of potential judges, crowding out other matters that have great impact on the country. Roe has been a tool for campaigning and fundraising (redundant?) used by politicians who, when elected, have little or no direct influence on the issue. Like our elected officials, we citizens have little direct influence on the issue - so the current situation really lets us off the hook.
I think that if forced to think it through, many of us are more conflicted about abortion that we would like to admit. If faced with the responsibility alone in a voting booth, one may be pushed to sort out one’s individual balance of religion, science, philosophy, economics, public policy, human rights, separation-of-church-and-state ideology and compassion for everyone involved… So I say, in the lingo of the moment, let’s put it to an up or down vote. And let’s be precise about it – early term, late term, relevant circumstances. And if breakthroughs in technology or philisophy or theology change our way of thinking, say about when life or consciousness or soul begin, let’s vote again. Wouldn’t be easy the first time. First national referendum? Allowed by a constitutional amendment? Resulting in a constitutional amendment? Obviously, I am “talking above my paygrade” here because I have no idea how this could be done.
But since I am assuming that it can be done (the power of ignorance), I want to add a referendum on the death penalty to the ballot. A federal law. Death penalty yes or no. Full disclosure – I am strongly against the death penalty and, unlike the question of abortion, cannot see ANY validity in the opposing arguments. But even given my position, and even though public opinion does not appear to be in my favor in this case (probably even less so today after the results of the DNA tests in the Coleman case), I would favor a national popular vote. Here again, I believe that people are more conflicted than they realize and that politicians impede clarity. While a stance on the death penalty doesn’t bring in the big campaign contributions, politicians use the issue as a line item on a checklist to demonstrate that they are conservative, or tough on crime, or whatever. With a popular vote, advocacy groups could shoulder the argument directly without the need to funnel their influence through politicians. With a true and direct debate, I believe that we as a nation could come to the right conclusion. Here again, when there is new information to be considered, as we have seen with DNA testing, let’s re-consider and put it back on the ballot.
Watching California from several states away, I have not seen real value in referendums. But if there is place for direct citizen involvement, it should be on the life and death issues.
1 Comment
Leave a Reply
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed. You can also pingback or trackback from your own site.
I read it too and brought it up again in 2007 today with a lawyer friend in the U.S. Brilliant analysis