With the elections less than two weeks away, the Detroit Free Press has been running a series of profiles on various candidates for statewide office. The profiles include a brief Q & A on major issues. Today's candidate is United States Senator Debbie Stabenow, who is running for reelection against Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard, whose profile will run tomorrow.
On a whole, Stabenow's profile was fairly neutral and the Q & A addressed some of the points that are most important to Michigan voters, like affirmative action, universal health care and illegal immigration. There were no questions on national security or the state economy, but I'll chalk that up to lack of print space. What I cannot excuse though is one question that the Free Press did ask: "Should the U.S. Supreme Court overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and return abortion regulation to each state, effectively making abortion illegal in Michigan?" I don't take issue with a question about the candidate's view on abortion. It's a serious and important issue. Stabenow's answer, that she would oppose such a move, doesn't surprise me. After all, I cannot think of a Democrat with any legislative role that opposes the Roe decision.
I should digress for a second and briefly explain my stance on abortion. As a conservative who believes in smaller government, I certainly have problems with the state interfering with people's activities. I draw the line, however, where those activities harm other people, including the unborn. I also believe strongly in a thing called personal responsibility. I obviously therefore believe that abortion should be available to victims of incest or rape, either the in classic sense or where the perpetrator takes advantage of someone's diminished mental capacity or maturity, as well as in cases where the pregnancy threatens the mother's health.
Anyway, the problem with the Free Press question is its second half. The question doesn't just imply but outright asserts as fact something that may or may not be true. It assumes that Michigan's voters, either directly or through its elected officials, will outlaw abortion if it had a choice. There may be polls of Michigan voters on what they would do in a hypothetical scenario where they have a say in the matter but I would question their reliability. After all, polls on issues, rather than "will you vote for Candidate A or Candidate B?", are inherently subject to the bias of the people writing the question. For example, depending on my bias, I could write the question as "Do you agree that a woman should be free from government intrusion on issues regarding her body, including abortion?" or "Do you believe that a woman should have the unfettered right to kill her unborn baby?" The polls would also be unreliable since they ask about an imaginary event that might or might not happen in an unspecified time period. Lastly, as recent polls on various races across the country as well as the 2004 presidential exit polls illustrate, polls are far from perfect indicators.
Obviously, Michigan's state legislators could vote to outlaw abortion and keep the issue from the voter's hands. That ploy would only work for so long though. After all, each and every legislator would then be on record regarding abortion and have to face his or her constituents, who could then vote to retain that official or give the job to someone else who would vote differently on the issue. Therefore, whether the matter comes to a vote before the voters directly or the state legislature, the voters would have the ultimate say on the issue. Isn't that what democracy is all about?
That, at its heart, is what was and remains disturbing about the Roe decision 33 years after the Supreme Court rendered it. In 1973, abortion was not illegal across the board in every state. Some states were allowing abortion and some were not. Abortion was already an issue of much debate across the country. Every state had their own debates and were deciding among themselves to what degree, if any, abortion should be legal within its borders. Rather than allowing each state to render its own decision via the democratic process though, the Supreme Court mandated a sweeping rule via reasoning that even many liberals find dubious. It is for that reason, more than any other, that I support overturning Roe. Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
I'm a little behind in my Sports Illustrated reading, so pardon the tardiness of this post. In the issue before the current one, there is an item in the Scorecard section, which contains one-paragraph entries about various activities in the sports world that don't rate a whole article. For example, some of the items in the particular issue's Scorecard are mentions that Peyton Manning missed his first practice in nine years and that Mark Downs Jr., the jerk who paid an eight-year old to bean an autistic kid in a little league game (a story that SI covered more in depth when it happened), got a one to six year sentence. What really caught my attention was the first story:
