Tuesday, November 07, 2006

The best case against judicial activism I've seen...

Laura Vanderkam discusses the referendum on South Dakota's ban on abortion with only an exception to save the life of the mother.

The last paragraph puts it better than anything I have ever seen:
It raises the question: What if all our abortion battles had been fought this way — democratically, with messy compromises — over the past 33 years? We might have reached an answer by now. Maybe. But if South Dakota's any indicator, we'd be a lot less strident. Abortion may be a battleground, but as Unruh says, "We don't have to turn it into a civil war."

Judicial activism - like Roe v. Wade and the gay marriage cases - harms the country, especially when millions of people are suddenly told that their voices will not be heard. Not only does it rob the people of their right to be heard on an issue, it robs them of the chance to reach a compromise that everyone can live with - and the chance to form a consensus on these issues.

Today, I voted for Virginia's constitutional amendment to at least be heard on the issue. I wish there was some other way. I wish I did not have to worry about having my votes nullified after a debate in secret by a small group of judges.

No comments: