In print | Published February 7, 2008

To the Editor:

Writing for the majority in Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun acknowledges that “If this suggestion of personhood [of the fetus] is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment.”

The court observes that it is unqualified to settle the definition of personhood, and then does so anyway, establishing the well-known trimester tests. Personhood, not privacy, is the essential controversy of abortion; the right to privacy obviously does not protect procedures that impinge upon someone else’s life or liberty.

In her Jan. 31 column, Lauren Mendoza notes that Rep. Ron Paul’s We the People Act (H.R. 300) would give states “the authority to make their own legislation to oppose abortion” by revoking the jurisdiction of federal courts in abortion cases. Mendoza would have us believe that this measure belies Dr. Paul’s commitment to limited government. Actually, it is a principled stand for Constitutional federalism.

There are many difficult questions that require political resolution but are outside the Constitution’s scope. As Dr. Paul understands, these are relegated to the states under the Tenth Amendment so that the nation will be a laboratory of diverse solutions.

While some states would react to H.R. 300 by prohibiting abortion entirely, many others would preserve the current level of abortion access; individuals would be free as ever to move among them. Whether a fetus is a person, or merely a treatable condition, is a question We the People can tackle without Washington’s input.

David German ’08

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »