Everyone Has Abortion Rights, Beliefs, and Opinions

The Supreme Court justices, chosen by the President of the United States, and confirmed by the U.S. Congress, are among the best educated people to be found in our country. Constitutionally, they don't need to be legal scholars, most happen to be. The justices are familiar with the U.S. Constitution and the rights and responsibilities of our working government, both at the state and federal levels. The Supreme Court, acting in its capacity to interpret our laws (and the intent of our founding fathers), has reached the only decision it could have when it decided in favor of a woman's right to choose whether or not she will have an abortion. Because of that ruling much has been discussed and debated by both sides of the abortion issue; one side remaining fast to the letter and intent of the Constitution, and the opposing side denouncing abortion on moral grounds. The reason the abortion question cannot be reconciled by either party is because there are two separate issues involved. In their own way, both sides are right.

The Supreme Court was correct in deciding Roe vs Wade. It decided that women do have the right to make private decisions with regard to their bodies. In making its decision the court could not consider questions of morality or religion because our constitution makes no provision for such doctrine--in fact, the court is precluded from making any decision on religious grounds. As a matter of fact, Thomas Jefferson, in his Bill for the Establishment of Religious Freedom (1779) focused on the natural rights of individuals to choose their own beliefs. In a country with so many disparate beliefs, who's beliefs would we follow?
Those who believe that abortion is wrong are entitled to their beliefs and opinions. Under the idea of religious freedom, they are free to choose any doctrine they wish--they are at liberty to refrain from the services they find unacceptable or deplorable--and go about their lives without regard to how their neighbors go about theirs.

The conflict between those for and against abortion happens when opponents act as keepers of their neighbors beliefs, mores, and rights. To attempt to instill, or inflict by force if necessary, a set of rules one group believes in upon another goes beyond fairness and justice. Picture, if you can, a group of pro-abortion (pro-women rights) advocates picketing in front of churches or synagogues demanding women have abortions. It's hard to imagine such a thing, and I don't believe it has ever happened. Yet abortion opponents have picketed and done worse in front of abortion clinics.

Since Roe vs Wade was decided in 1973 there have been thousands of attacks on clinics. Between 1989 and 2004 there have been 24 murders and attempted murders of abortion doctors and over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups (Religious Tolerance). These attacks seem to suggest that providers of abortion are to blame--as if they are actively engaged in promoting or impregnating women so as to profit from the result.

This begs the question: Have we overlooked the fact that the women entering these clinics are our mothers, sisters, daughters, girlfriends, and wives? They are, after all, the ones who are pregnant. Is not the problem one that encompasses all faiths? Haven't women of all faiths also availed themselves of the very services and rights their pastors, preachers, clerics, rabbis, and neighbors denounce, or have themselves denounced?

The two sides of this issue are similar to oil and water in that they should not be mixed, and if mixed will tend to once again separate; each stands on it's own merits and worth. If a woman's beliefs dictate that she should not have an abortion, then she is free to make that choice. If, on the other hand, a woman decides to have an abortion, then she too is free to make that choice. This is the whole idea of freedom. This is why it was so important to separate church doctrine from state affairs in a country with so many diverse cultures and religions. It is the reason the Supreme Court decided the way that it did. To do otherwise is to have a country divided into many ideological camps and religious factions, each with their own laws and rights (or lack of rights) separate and distinct from the rest of the country. In a free country, this should never be, and it is the reason we have separation of church and state--so people can make decisions based on their individual needs supported by their freedom of choice.