|
Home » News » Archives » ACLU of Illinois Executive Director Colleen Connell Responds to New York Times Column regarding Roe v. Wade Decision
ACLU of Illinois Executive Director Colleen Connell Responds to New York Times Column regarding Roe v. Wade Decision In response to David Brooks' Column of 4/22/05, New York Times As a lawyer, I was appalled by David Brooks' distortion of the legitimate role that the Constitution, and the Supreme Court, play in protecting fundamental rights. I was even more appalled by his attempt to blame Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun for the vitriol that has coarsened political discourse. Blackmum was a Solomon-like jurist who took great care in his Roe opinion to recognize and respect the values of those opposed to abortion. The Court's decision in Roe did not materialize out of thin air. It was well grounded in nearly a century of constitutional doctrine, stemming back to Justice Brandeis' recognition in the late 19th Century that perhaps the most important of rights was the right of a person to be "left alone" by government. A core principle of American democracy that ours is a "limited" government with only that power expressly granted to it by the people through the Constitution. The Bill of Rights further limits the power of the government by protecting certain fundamental rights, including freedom of religion and freedom of speech, from the heavy hand of government. Perhaps most fundamental of all of these rights, and certainly that valued by most Americans, as illustrated in the Schiavo case, is the right to make certain decisions about medical care and family life, without interference by government. Few decisions are more important to Americans than the right to decide whether and who to marry, whether and when to have children, and whether and how long to accept end of life medical care. Roe was based on earlier Supreme Court decisions holding that the Constitution protects the rights to use birth control If Mr. Brooks gets what he wants -- the reversal of Roe -- the freedom of each of us to use birth control also will no longer be constitutionally protected. Instead, our childbearing decisions will be left to the capricious whim of legislators who may bend to the will of those highly motivated activists who consider not only abortion but also contraception a sin against God. The Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court's protection of the rights of individuals -- even in the face of majority opposition to certain religious views or political expression -- is a key part of our democracy and it is ostensibly this protection of "fundamental rights" that we are trying to export to the Middle East. How tragic that Mr. Brooks would obliterate fundamental rights at home. |
|
