Assessing Alito

I am not a Democrat. I'm an Independent. I feel compelled to make that statement because there are times when Democrats embarrass me. Now is one of those times.

I've been following the Alito confirmation hearings pretty closely. And while I do disagree with Alito's prior claim that there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees a woman the right to an abortion--What about my right to determine the course of my own life? My liberty? My happiness?--I can't help but side with Republicans when it comes to just about every other issue Dems are whining about.

First, let's talk semantics. I've heard countless Democrats express outrage over their claim that Alito "bragged" about his membership in CAP (Concerned Alumni of Princeton), an organization that has reportedly attempted to keep women and minorities out of Princeton and wants to deny both groups "equal rights." The reality is that CAP was fighting to stop quota systems that gave preferential treatment to minorities and women. That's a far cry from attempting to keep them out altogether. You may argue that minorities and women deserve preferential treatment and I would say you may have a valid argument, but let's not confuse the issue with inflammatory statements that misrepresent the facts.

While the language in some of the CAP literature may be elitist, when Alito was asked, specifically, to comment on an article from one such newsletter (one that referred to minorities and women as "not knowing their place") Alito condemned it, outright. He also made it very clear that his reason for joining CAP was to express his concern over the school's decision to ban ROTC programs--another issue CAP spoke openly about--it was not their stance on treatment of women and minorities. Alito has been asked about this, and he has answered appropriately. Putting his CAP membership on his resume (over 20 years ago, while seeking employment within an extremely conservative administration) is no more sinister than my decision to include every writers' association, to which I pay dues, on my resume. (Frankly, I don't even know what half of them do, but I thought they might be useful at one time, so I signed up.)

As for Alito's opinions on other matters, we are being told that he almost always rules in favor of big corporations. That would be relevant except for one contextual element that is consistently left out of the discussion: Alito is an appeals court judge. That means he regularly decides cases that have already been tossed out by a prior court. I.e., he's not working from a pool of cases that are necessarily legitimate to begin with. Therefore, citing statistics on the number of cases where he wrote an opinion that favored the defendant versus the plaintiff (i.e. the corporation versus the individual bringing suit against them) is a disingenuous approach to assessing his credentials.

What does concern me is Alito's stance on abortion.

When people believe life starts at conception, they can be pretty stubborn about abortion. In light of that, I'd like to address some of the reasons I believe abortion should be both legal and available on demand.

First, does life begin at conception? Perhaps so. But can't we then also say that sperm is life and so is the ovum? Both are made of living organisms. Christians like to say that conception is where life begins, because that's when sperm and ovum meet. But God doesn't determine when we have sex--and sperm and ovum don't meet (forget, for now, about the Petri dish) without sex. So we already have a system, presumably created by God, in which the actions of people are a major determining factor. Yet when it comes to choosing to terminate a pregnancy, we are told by these same Christians that the actions (and/or desires) of the pregnant woman, should not be a determining factor. God has spoken, they say, and like it or not, all pregnancies should be carried to term.

Yet if creating a child is a partnership between God and man, then why shouldn't choosing not to bring the fetus to term be one also? Why should a woman, regardless of age, intelligence, income, social standing, education, etc., be required to bring to term a pregnancy she does not want? And why should it matter to anybody else why she does not want it?

No woman is free if she cannot take advantage of modern medicine to control her own body. No woman is free if she is compelled by the legalized morality of another, to carry to term a pregnancy she does not welcome. I cannot count the number of times I have heard self-righteous Christians say that if a pregnant woman doesn't want to raise a child, she should simply have the child then give it up for adoption. This argument merely serves to demonstrate their denial of the extreme emotional, psychological (not to mention financial) consequences of carrying a fetus to term.

I understand that men may be tempted to make erroneous assumptions without the intent to cause harm. But I must say that as a woman whose life has been strongly affected by my own decisions regarding childbirth, it is both offensive and absurd to me that any man would believe he had the right to dictate a woman's decision in this regard.

As for parental notification: if a child is pregnant, her parents have already failed. What possible advantage could there be in forcing that child to involve others in her decision, unless she felt that their support would be helpful? This applies, as well, to legal requirements for spousal notification and any other legislated waiting period designed to force women to "contemplate" their actions. Trust me, a pregnant woman does not need a law to force her to think deeply about her situation and the consequences of her choice.

There is one person, and only one, who should make this difficult and life-altering decision, and that is the woman who is pregnant. If your concern is that certain pregnant women might not be qualified to make the correct choice, then how on earth could you expect them to be qualified to raise a child?

The pro-life movement is not really pro-life, it's pro-birth. If the same consideration were given to caring for unwanted children that is given to forcing unwanted children to be born, our world would be a better place.

The following letter from Steven Lewis of New Paltz, New York, states the case more eloquently than I ever could. I hope that those men who read it will take it to heart--not just because a man wrote it--but because he speaks the truth.

It's Not Always About Dad
(published as a letter to the editor, New York Times, December 7, 2005)

As a dad of seven (and granddad of nine), I know well the rights and privileges and obligations of fatherhood. But this I know as well: conception is not pregnancy any more than a first sentence is a novel.

No matter how many ways one looks at gestation, men carry none of the abundant discomforts, anxieties, transformations or perils associated with carrying a baby to term. (It is not so cavalierly dismissed as "attendant morning sickness, leg cramps, biological risks and so on.")

Nor do we suffer the profound physical, spiritual or emotional trauma of miscarriage or abortion.

By its very nature, pregnancy is the exclusive and private domain of women. Men who think otherwise reveal a stunning lack of humility.

Over the past 37 years of a life informed by children, I have slowly and sometimes painfully come to understand that it is not always about me. Someone who equates a father's relevance with the ability to obtain an injunction against abortion needs to look beyond himself for his place in the family.

--Steven Lewis, New Paltz, New York

I could not have said it better myself.