• Blog
• Our Party
  • What We Stand For
  • The 50-State Strategy
  • About the DNC
  • Party Organizations
  • Democratic Leaders
  • Party History
  • Delegate Selection
• Action
  • Get Your Democracy Bond
  • Write a Letter to an Editor
  • Create or Find an Event
  • Create a Fundraising Page
  • Start a Blog
  • Write to Congress
  • Find Local Democrats
  • Join an Online Group
  • Get on the Email List
  • Invite Your Friends to Join
  • Volunteer
  • Register to Vote
  • Make a Contribution
• Agenda
  • Honest Government
  • Real Security
  • Energy Independence
  • Economic Prosperity
  • Affordable Health Care
  • Retirement Security
  • Protecting Our Environment
  • Civil Rights & Justice
  • Election Reform
  • Immigration Reform
• Local
• People
  • African Americans
  • Asian Amer./Pacific Islanders
  • Disability Community
  • Faith in Action
  • Hispanics
  • LGBT Community
  • Native Americans
  • Rural Americans
  • Seniors & Retirees
  • Small Business Community
  • Union Members & Families
  • Veterans & Military Families
  • Women
  • Young People & Students
• Press
  • Latest Releases
  • Radio Addresses
• Contact
• Español

Presidential Politics and the Constitution

Posted by Louisa Kinoshi and Sharon Grosfeld on August 8, 2007 at 12:40 PM

The loss of constitutional freedoms by the Bush Administration and Supreme Court continues to activate people all around the country to speak out against the Robert's Court and more specifically its trampling on each person's right to privacy. In particular, the Supreme Court's decision in "Gonzales v. Carhart," this past April was an outright assault on women all across the nation and drew immediate attention to the importance of having a Democratic president elected in 2008.

Given the Bush Administration's impact and influence on the Supreme Court, men and women alike are beginning to recognize the relationship between the presidency and the people serving in the judicial branch of government. The checks and balances that are supposed to protect the people from a government run amok have been breached by the activist judges appointed by a President who demands total obedience to his own political sentiments.

People from all walks of life are joining together in greater numbers than ever before to express their anger at the reactionary policies of the Bush Administration, in addition to many of the Supreme Court's decisions. Women are especially aggrieved by Justice Anthony Kennedy's portrayal of women in "Carhart" as being incapable of making intelligent, independent decisions about their own personal health care. This paternalistic viewpoint effectively removes the decision-making process from women and their doctors to make critical health care decisions without government interference. The Bush Administration's sanctioning of this decision echos this discriminatory and sexist belief.

The problem with "Carhart" is explicit by what is not stated in the decision. No where does the Court discuss the life of the woman as a whole, complete person, an independent adult with intelligence and the same right as others to be free from control by a government apparatus that is supposed to respect a person's privacy, especially surrounding the right to control one's own body. Instead, the majority in the Robert's Court, along with the Republicans and Bush Administration, substitute their own judgment in place of a woman's considered and rational determination about her own health care needs.

"Gonzales v. Carhart" is the Republicans' first major step towards outlawing abortion. States dominated by Republican lawmakers are already following suit to outlaw abortions in as many ways as they can dream up. For instance, Missouri Governor Matt Blunt signed a new law that places abortion clinics under government oversight by classifying them as ambulatory surgical centers. As such, the often financially strapped clinics may be forced to spend millions of dollars to remodel their clinics unnecessarily. This will likely lead to additional closures of health care facilities that provide safe and legal abortion services.

In Louisiana, late term abortion procedures have been outlawed and doctors are penalized if they perform such procedures in all cases except for those when the mother's life is threatened. Thus, it is a crime to perform this rare, but sometimes medically necessary procedure, even when the pregnancy causes significant health problems and risks for the mother.

Efforts have also been underway by the Bush Administration to severely limit sex education to abstinence only programs proven to be ineffective. And women in the military are unable to access many reproductive services, including emergency contraception, that non-military women possess.

There should be no doubt that the Republicans are on a mission to limit not only women's freedom to control their own bodies, including restricting their legal choices even as they relate to the use of contraception, but also to rewrite the Constitution in a 21st Century image that closely resembles McCarthyism. As such, it is abundantly clear that we must elect a Democratic president and many more Democrats to Congress lest women's constitutional rights, and the freedoms all Americans have peacefully enjoyed pursuant to a constitution based upon individual liberty and a Supreme Court that is supposed to administer justice for all, become completely obliterated.

Thankfully, Democrats in Congress have already taken a strong stand to counteract the Bush Administration by introducing the Freedom of Choice Act (S.1173 and H.R. 1064) which codifies reproductive freedom based upon the tenets of "Roe v. Wade." Finally women will have the protection they need under federal law by the passage of this legislation. However, without sufficient numbers of Democrats in Congress and a Democratic President who will sign the Freedom of Choice Act into law, women and men will continue to lose their constitutional rights.

This piece was written by Louisa Kinoshi, WLF Intern and Sharon Grosfeld, WLF Executive Director.