Defending Bush on abortion
Observer Viewpoint | Thursday, November 10, 2005
The abortion-representing crosses strewn about South Quad each year always stir up a great deal of emotion. Yet without fail, some students insist on applying ill-conceived political spins to what should be a somber display.
Matthew Smedberg’s Nov. 8 Inside Column “Dubya and the Unborn” rings false on numerous levels. He accuses President Bush and the Republican party of failing to produce legislature criminalizing abortion despite the fact that “the party with the anti-abortion plank has controlled both houses of Congress” for several years.
Overlooked, apparently, is the fact that bills must receive a two-thirds majority to pass, which no anti-abortion bill would even come close to at this point in time. It’s unlikely that any party will ever achieve a two-thirds majority in our two-party democracy. Therefore, anti-abortion bills will never pass through Congress, meaning the Judicial Branch is the most likely means by which Roe v. Wade may be overturned.
Bush’s appointments to the Supreme Court provide hope. John Roberts is a conservative with a history suggesting an opposition to abortion. Samuel Alito, who appears certain to be confirmed, is a moderate conservative. Potentially, Bush may have aligned the Supreme Court such that abortion will not be legal in the United States within 15 years.
I am an adopted child. My unwed birthparents had every legal right to abort, but luckily for me, their consciences wouldn’t allow this. So, as you might imagine, abortion is a primary issue I consider when discussing politics. In my opinion, Bush is making all the right moves to end what is, collectively, our nation’s greatest sin.
Aaron Zielinski seniorOff-campusNov. 9