Where I Stand — Brian Greenspun: Bush threatens freedom

Saturday, Oct. 28, 2000 | 3:43 a.m.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

I GET BY with a little help from my friends.

This close to Election Day it is difficult to find too many people who will admit that they are undecided about the candidate for whom they will vote. That is a bit frustrating for someone like me who likes to discuss the issues as often and as long as people will still lend an ear. That's why I love my friend, Fred. Whether or not he's made up his mind, he still pretends to care about what I have to say.

A few days ago the subject was the U.S. Supreme Court. Specifically, it was the kind and quality of justices that Gov. George Bush says he'd appoint if the people give him the opportunity to enter the White House as opposed to the jurists who Vice President Al Gore would choose for that lifetime position. I have thought a lot about this very question, so I was happy to have the chance to share my thoughts with Fred and I liked what I said so much that I thought I should expand the discussion. Hence, the following:

Gov. Bush has told everyone who will listen that his choices for the highest court in the land would be similar to Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Two people, he believes, who will interpret the Constitution in a very strict way. He has been steadfast in his determination that these are the kinds of minds that will make the best justices for America and the American way.

I, of course, disagree. And while there are many people who share my position that Justices Scalia and Thomas are exactly the wrong kind of justices for America, we come to that conclusion from very different perspectives. I know that talk of Supreme Courts and legal rulings is sometimes too dreary for most people to pay attention to for too long, but this is important stuff. So a little extra effort would be advisable.

First, while I am a lawyer, I haven't practiced in many years and do not hold myself out to be an expert on this or, for that matter, any other area of the law. I do, however, have a strong belief in the rightness of my cause and am, therefore, willing to test the theory publicly. What this means is that tomorrow I will receive more than my share of hate mail from those who disagree.

For the millions of Americans who believe that women in this country should have the right to decide for themselves, without government intervention, whether or not to carry their pregnancies to term, the mere thought of a court full of Scalias scares the heck out of them. It conjures up their greatest fears and ugliest memories of back-alley abortions and young women bleeding to death because they saw no safe alternatives for themselves.

Both Scalia and Thomas have been very clear that they would overturn Roe v. Wade if given the opportunity. Roe v. Wade is the Supreme Court decision written almost 30 years ago that found a right of privacy in the U.S. Constitution that prevented the government from telling a woman that she had to maintain a pregnancy against her wishes. It is a decision that anti-abortion groups have sworn to overturn and for which some activists have threatened to kill whoever stands in their way. To put it succinctly, it is a very controversial issue with all sides overly invested from an emotional standpoint.

Let's look, though, at what Roe v. Wade really says and what it means for all Americans, regardless of their position on abortion, because if Scalia and Thomas -- and the justices George Bush has promised to appoint -- get their way, then the new world will be vastly different from that which we have come to know.

The Supreme Court said that the government, under most conditions, could not interfere with a woman's choice to have an abortion. The majority of the court decided this way because they found that the Constitution had within it an individual's right to privacy. That meant there were certain parts of our lives as people that even the government could not invade. It was a classic example of a court standing between a government hell-bent on having its way and an individual, helpless against governmental power but, nevertheless, deserving of protection in this land of the free. In short, the right of privacy in Roe v. Wade stands for the general proposition that individual rights must be paramount to the wants and needs of government. It is, by the way, a very Republican political principle that has been lost in recent years to those who profess to adhere to such ideals.

If Bush's justices overturn Roe v. Wade, they throw away 30 years of precedence that says individual rights are important in America and with it the protection that my generation and the succeeding ones have taken for granted. For if the government, acting through Congress, can tell a woman she must carry her pregnancy to term it can, could it not, also tell her that she could not? The only difference between government saying that you can't have an abortion and that you must have one is the mood of a majority of Congress on any given day. It may sound absurd but it is absolutely true.

In many cases, the Bill of Rights protects minorities from the overbearing will of the majority. On matters of religion, assembly, speech and our ability to be secure in our homes from unreasonable searches, the Bill of Rights protects us against an overzealous government. But there are many areas of individual life that aren't specifically spelled out in the Constitution, and that is where the right of privacy comes into play. It is absurd, for example, to even suggest that our government -- should the majority of people in the country decide one day -- could dictate the number of children we can have. And, yet, without a zone of privacy into which our government could not enter, it is theoretically possible for Congress to do just that.

It may sound extreme, but it is the extreme that we must try to avoid. If there is anything that distinguishes American citizenship from all other citizens in this world, it is our ability to think, act and be free from government oppression. The principle of privacy found in Roe v. Wade guarantees that difference will continue. So, if a presidential candidate wants to appoint justices who will overturn that principle the first chance they get, I have to say he is the wrong candidate for me.

It has very little to do with abortion and everything to do with being free. I choose freedom and the best way to be free is to keep the government out of my life.

I await the mail.

archive