I, along with many other pundits, have been reading up quickly on Judge Alito. It appears that his position on abortion, the “litmus test” that the conservative religious right is employing these days, is not as ironclad as President Bush thought. Judge Alito has a record of adhering to prior court rulings, and seems to have a strong streak of belief in individual liberty throughout his previous rulings.
How then does his mother’s now infamous, “Of course, he’s against abortion” comment align with his rulings?
This is proof that the man is qualified and capable of being an excellent justice. He is able to separate his personal views from those of non-sectarian society values. As a lawyer, this is a hallmark of a finely-crafted mind, and I like to think that I too, am able to differentiate from my personal thoughts, with what the society at large should be.
In the upcoming confirmation hearings, much will be made of the judge’s rulings on abortion. His famous ruling on marital notification, which was quoted by Justice Rehnquist in his dissent in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, had to do with whether or not a husband should have to be notified of a pending abortion.
I believe that it should be clearly articulated that notification is not permission. Requiring a wife to inform her husband that she is about to abort what is presumed to be their joint creation is only fair in my opinion.
The point of marriage is to create a union. That union then works together to build something. When husband and wife are engaging sexual intercourse, they are each saying they are willing to take on the responsibility of a future child. In my book, they are each gambling that a life will be created.
Since they both have the legal responsibility for the child, they should each have the right to know what is happening with that child. Granted the woman has to carry the child, but that alone does not mean that she should preclude her husband from participation in the discussion of whether or not to abort.
Marriage carries with it legal rights and responsibilities. One of those responsibilities should be to inform your spouse if you are pregnant and going to abort the creation.
Let me be clear: I am not saying the woman should have to get permission from the husband to have the abortion, but she should have to inform him that she is going to get one.
Abortion is a tough subject for most people. It goes to the very heart of our outlook on life. How we view it goes to the very core of how we view the world.
I think most people would agree that the starting point for much of the debate about abortion is what is the “matter” which is to be removed. The difference in valuation is perhaps clarified by the terminology of “tumor” versus “potential person.” For those people who don’t consider a fertilized egg to have anything special about it, up until some later point in its development, I think they are using the “tumor” mentality. That is, the removal of a fertilized egg, or fetus carries no implicit moral thinking because it is no different than having a wart removed.
On the other hand, I think if someone believes the zygote is more than a cell, because it can grow into a human being, it has a “potential personhood” encased in it. They are going to have to look at the moral issues of what the removal does.
When I was in freshman biology we did a chicken embryo experiment. We took chicken embryos at various stages of development and viewed them under a microscope. My lab partner accidentally nicked the embryo, which consisted mainly of a heart and a small circulatory system. The heart kept beating for minutes afterwards, even though all the blood drained out. It was then that I decided that life began at conception.
I think and feel that abortion is a taking of a life. But the fact that I am opposed to abortion on a personal level does not mean that I think it should be made illegal on a societal level.
The question then becomes: If one side feels it is murder to kill a “potential person” and one side feels it is merely a medical procedure equivalent to the removal of a tumor, how do we in a non-sectarian society decide what to allow?
I think the only way we can encompass both points of view is to allow choice. That way neither side is forced to take any action that they do not want.
Thinking on two levels is clearly difficult for the majority of humanity. It requires the ability to differentiate oneself from the larger whole. This is not something people like to do. They want to feel a part of. It gives them identity in ways that relieve them from having to think about their values in a larger context.
The ability to do so is what separates the special from the mundane. Judge Alito seems to be capable of holding his personal views in one hand, and his societal views in the other. This to me is proof that, though I may not be in lockstep agreement with him on all things, he is clearly an astute and responsible candidate for the Supreme Court.
As I said before, one man’s conservative is another man’s liberal. Is letting a husband know that his wife is getting an abortion a restraint on her, or a protection of his right to know? Depends on which side of the argument you’re on. (David Pisarra is a business development lawyer in the Santa Monica firm of Pisarra & Grist. He welcomes your questions and comments. He or (310) 664-9969.)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 8, 2005. Read the original PDF.