Bush's abortion evasion

WHEN BOB Schieffer asked President Bush on Wednesday night whether he wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, Bush declared: "What he's asking me is, will I have a litmus test for my judges? And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test. I will pick judges who will interpret the Constitution, but I'll have no litmus test."

ADVERTISEMENT

This nonanswer is chilling. It raises the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade and letting states decide what's legal. Women in 30 states would be at risk of losing their right to an abortion, according to a report released this month by the Center for Reproductive Rights, a nonprofit organization in New York City. Among the states where the risk is greatest are Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. The 20 states where abortion rights are safest include Massachusetts, New York, Maine, and West Virginia.

Instead of addressing Roe v. Wade, the president called for abstinence, reducing the number of abortions, group maternity homes, and adoption laws -- "a great alternative to abortion" for many women. These are fine ideas. But abstinence without comprehensive sex education is a crippled solution. And the women who put their children up for adoption still undergo all the physical demands and health risks of pregnancy, including spikes in blood pressure and gestational diabetes. Pregnant teenagers face an even higher risk of medical complications and death.

If women lose the right to an abortion, they will do so at a time when access to birth control is also threatened. The perilous myth is that limiting access to abortion and birth control will be a moral victory. In fact, it would be a healthcare disaster, affecting not some pernicious stereotype of a loose woman but ordinary mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters.

While Bush says he has no litmus test for judges, he praises Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who opposes abortion rights. In a 1992 dissent in the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Scalia argued that abortion is not a right protected by the Constitution because "(1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed."

The court's ruling offered a wise rebuttal: "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." The opinion added that marriage is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights but that the court has correctly ruled that interracial marriage is "an aspect of liberty protected against state interference" by the 14th Amendment's due process clause. The Constitution places no limit on the liberties that are protected, the opinion added.

Bush should have used the debate to take a clear stand on Roe v. Wade. Voters deserve to know.