Abortion rights must be upheld in future

EDITORIAL BOARD Editor in
Chief  Timothy Kudo

Managing Editor
 Michael Falcone

Viewpoint Editor
 Cuauhtemoc Ortega

Staff Representatives
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao
 Kelly Rayburn

Editorial Board Assistants
 Maegan Carberry
 Edward Chiao

  Unsigned editorials represent a majority opinion of
the Daily Bruin Editorial Board. All other columns, letters and
artwork represent the opinions of their authors.   All
submitted material must bear the author’s name, address, telephone
number, registration number, or affiliation with UCLA. Names will
not be withheld except in extreme cases.   The Bruin
complies with the Communication Board’s policy prohibiting the
publication of articles that perpetuate derogatory cultural or
ethnic stereotypes.   When multiple authors submit
material, some names may be kept on file rather than published with
the material. The Bruin reserves the right to edit submitted
material and to determine its placement in the paper. All
submissions become the property of The Bruin. The Communications
Board has a media grievance procedure for resolving complaints
against any of its publications. For a copy of the complete
procedure, contact the Publications office at 118 Kerckhoff Hall.
Daily Bruin 118 Kerckhoff Hall 308 Westwood Plaza Los Angeles, CA
90024 (310) 825-9898

With congressional elections approaching in November and
America’s focus on foreign affairs, abortion rights seem to
have dropped out of the national debate. But this is hardly the
time to let discussion of a woman’s right to choose slip into
the shadows. Roe vs. Wade, which celebrated its 29th anniversary on
Tuesday, has never been in graver danger.

The Supreme Court is only two votes away from overturning Roe.
If President Bush is able to make any appointments to the Court
during his term, he will almost certainly instate justices with
anti-abortion stances. This scenario is becoming more worrisome, as
reliable liberal justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg
will have a tough time hanging on until the appointment of a
Democratic president ““ Stevens will turn 82 this year, and
Ginsberg suffers from cancer.

In addition to the logistics of keeping a solid pro-Roe voting
bloc, the actions of the anti-abortion movement, led by President
Bush, indicate a strong desire to take down the current precedent.
Only last weekend, the same Bush who executed nearly 140 death row
inmates as governor of Texas declared Sunday National Sanctity of
Life Day.

There is some comfort in a recent Gallup Poll which indicates
only 17 percent of Americans feel abortion should be illegal
regardless of circumstances. And while only 26 percent thought it
should be legal in all circumstances, a majority of Americans (56
percent) support abortions under “some” circumstances.
If these numbers are representative of the nation’s position,
at least Bush will have a tough political decision.

Ideally, the Bush administration should select a combination of
abortion rights and anti-abortion justices. Coming up with a
compromise on what types of abortion are legal and under what
circumstances, is more likely to produce decisions that consider
both sides fairly.

But regardless of what the administration does, or who is
elected to Congress come November, the difficult and well-made
arguments of both sides will continue ““ 73 percent of
Americans will not take a drastic change lightly.

The American public will continue arguing over questions like
“What is a life?” Liberals will talk about viability.
Conservatives will counter arguing for the sanctity of human life.
Liberals will want to know what happens to poor women who
can’t afford to support babies, and conservatives will tell
those women they need to think about the consequences before they
have sex. Other gray areas include abortion in the case of rape and
incest, and why men are not given as much say as a woman in
deciding whether their child is aborted.

All of these are legitimate questions with difficult answers.
But in the end, they all revolve around self-determination. People
want the ability to control their own lives, not have the
government do it for them. Deciding for yourself is what ethical
decisions are all about.

This debate is particularly sensitive because the fetus lacks
self-determination capabilities, and someone must make a decision
for it. The best people for this job are its parents. People might
object to this and call it murder, but it is not the role of anyone
other than a pregnant woman and her child’s father to decide
on the matter. If an individual chooses not to have an abortion
because she believes it is immoral, she has the right to choose
this option. But if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, she
should be able to choose to ““ it’s no one else’s
business, and certainly not the government’s.