Opinion: Election puts abortion on the line

10/14/04Ladies grab your brassieres and your aprons, because you may have to burn them once again.

Come election day, the women of America will not only be voting for the next president, but for someone who will be able to confirm or negate their right to choose. It is highly probable that the next president of the United States will appoint two, possibly four, Supreme Court justices and that could swing the small majority that upholds a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Four of the nine justices are over 70. Justice Saundra Day O'Connor, 74, who has typically served as a swing vote, may be considering retirement. Chief Justice William Rehnquist just celebrated his eightieth birthday and has similarly contemplated hanging up his robe. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 71, has been battling cancer since 1999 and Justice John Paul Stevens is 84 years old.

The majority of the cases the court has recently seen have been decided by a narrow 5-4 majority. The pendulum could be easily swayed in either direction by this election. Under the Bush administration the court has upheld gerrymandering, campaign finance limits, and the use of the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. The court also agreed to hear arguments on the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments in court houses this week.

The candidates both declare they will not adhere to a litmus test when appointing Supreme Court justices, but precedents reveal their preferences.

Sen. John Kerry specified he would not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that would overturn the monumental 1973 decision in Roe vs. Wade, which upheld a women's right to choose to abort an unborn fetus based on her right to privacy. Sen. Kerry sees the court as a medium for social justice "and to give a voice to the voiceless."

President Bush has declared the two most conservative justices on the court, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas, are model members because they leave legislating to Congress. Mr. Bush's district court nominees overwhelmingly demonstrate his preferences for the bench.

President Bush nominated Judge Claude Allen to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Allen adamantly endorses abstinence-only education and has compared abortion to genocide. President Bush also nominated Judge Priscilla Owen to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Owen has repeatedly attempted to deny adolescent women their right to choose. Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. was appointed by Mr. Bush during a congressional recess to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals where he will remain until Congress adjourns in the fall of 2005. Pryor referred to the Roe vs. Wade decision as "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." The Senate successfully filibustered the lifetime nomination for Pryor and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., is challenging the appointment.

President Bush also signed a bill last November prohibiting partial birth abortions, which was the first restriction on abortion since 1973. In recent years, a woman's right to choice has slowly diminished. In addition to the ban of partial birth abortions, which does not consider the health risk of the mother, parental notification laws and waiting periods have been added. Many women across the country have begun to rekindle their dwindling fire, particularly when an estimated 800,000 marched in late April 2004 for a woman's right to choose.

Although women are adamantly touting their pro-choice preference, none claim to be pro-abortion. The Roe vs. Wade decision cemented a woman's right to choose what to do or not to do with her own body. It is a matter of privacy and no government should define the moral integrity of a female's choice.

For women who would like to protect the sanctity of their privacy, this year's choice is not only about a president, but about their right to decide what's best for themselves.