EDITORIAL – Alito threatens 33-year-old statute

With Sunday marking 33 years since the Supreme Court made a decision in Roe vs. Wade, some… With Sunday marking 33 years since the Supreme Court made a decision in Roe vs. Wade, some wonder how many anniversaries the statute has left.

While it is clear to many that a precedent was set on Jan. 22, 1973, Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito appears to be undecided about this fact, refusing to specifically say that legalized abortion is “settled law,” unlike Justice John Roberts who identifies Roe vs. Wade as such.

As each day passes, chances are greater that Alito will be selected to replace Roe vs. Wade supporter Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. His stances in the past also suggest that women’s rights may once again be at the mercy of the Supreme Court. A story in The Bee reports, “Alito’s perhaps best-known case is an anti-abortion opinion in which he argued the constitutionality of a spousal notification requirement as well as parental-consent and waiting-period requirements.”

It’s no surprise that Alito has been called forth by the Republican party to jeopardize Roe vs. Wade once again. Ever since abortion has been legalized, the religious right has fought vigorously against the right to choose and has succeeded on some fronts. Today, modifications have been made to legalized abortion, and as many as 34 states require parental consent for girls under the age of 18 who choose to have the procedure.

It seems that Republicans are not only moving to go against a clear precedent set by the Supreme Court, but they are rejecting one of the principles of their own party: small government. How can they be so hypocritical?

On several issues throughout the years, the idea of small government established the importance of personal freedoms. If men contend that the government should not interfere with their finances or how they maintain their households, how can the suggestion even be made that women should be told what to do with their uteruses?

And yet, small government rears its head when it comes to the right to bear arms. Each interest always seems to contradict the other.

It’s not the government’s job to make our personal business their business, but it is their job to uphold the Bill of Rights and the laws that rule our land. And they should uphold them in the interest of all people and not just a select few.

Being on the Supreme Court is not about personal beliefs; it’s about interpreting the Constitution. If Alito is confirmed, his decision should be based on what’s best for the country and not on his relationship with God or the Republican party. Despite trials and Christian fundamentalist pressure, Roe vs. Wade has been upheld for 33 solid years. Alito should consider this if he is chosen to make a decision on the matter.

Beyond Roe v. Wade, however, it’s high time officials decide to separate religion and state once and for all. Besides the fact that the marriage of conservative Christianity and Republicanism may eventually divide the political party, weakening its power, legislating morality is wrong.

In the end, we must all realize that what works for one doesn’t work for all. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned it will not deter abortion, but cause destruction. The poor will be at the mercy of illegal abortion practitioners, while the middle class and the rich cross the border to Canada. But by then, the decision will have been made and it will be too late.