Erin has selected for this week one of the most complex and nuanced problems America has grappled with over the past fifty years: abortion. However, she also previously discussed another complex issue in Voter ID laws. I feel the need to address both, at least in part.
I’ll start with Voter ID laws. I am conditionally in support of voter ID laws. Most states have some form of Voter ID laws. In California you need to provide your drivers’ license number in order to register. In Hawaii you need to show a valid ID, with a signature, and sign a polling place book in order to vote. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Washington all have forms of Voter ID laws. Even Vermont requires first time voters to show ID. So to say voter ID laws are a GOP plot to disenfranchise Americans is absurd.
Canada, along with many European and Latin American countries require identification as well, often going as far as requiring specific Voter ID’s. In Mexico you need to apply for, and pick up, your ID in person. In the U.S. it is much easier to obtain an ID for voting than in other countries that require it. In Georgia, if you cannot leave your home, a government worker will come to you. In many states IDs are subsidized or provided and/or you can use your social security number. If the state provides subsidized or free ID’s for low income individuals, and like Georgia makes the process accessible to the elderly who cannot leave their homes, then I am okay with these laws. Moreover, in the 21st century you need an ID to do everything from driving to opening a bank account. I realize there is much more to be said about these laws as they stand today, but I feel like California is actually doing a good job on this complex issue.
Now to gracefully transition to abortion. Erin made one claim that really bothered me in her last column, which I will not let slide. She claimed that it is hypocritical of Republicans to oppose abortions and still claim to be champions of small government. The fact is that those two are not mutually exclusive. Most individuals who oppose abortion oppose it because they believe that abortion is equitable with murder of an innocent human being. Defending the innocent and defenseless is a primary function of just government no matter how big or how small.
The real question lies in how you define an unborn fetus. That question gets into the definition of when life begins. If you believe, like many Christians do, that life begins at conception, then it makes sense that you would be opposed to abortion in total. The Supreme Court has deliberated on this issue in several famous and consequential decisions, mainly Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. I will not bore you with the details, but I will share with you the key things to take from these cases. First is the notion of a “compelling state interest.” The court recognized the state interest in both the health of the mother and the potential human life in the fetus. The second major portion of understanding the decisions is the notion of “viability,” which was preceded by the trimester system. The commonly thrown around statement of “a women’s right to choose” I find to be an oversimplification of a very complex issue.
For me, the bottom line is that late term abortions (in the third trimester or after the point of “viability”) are barbaric and no matter how you slice it, they should not be allowed in a civil society. However, the personal decision argument has more weight in the period before “viability,” in my opinion. Keep in mind I was not raised as a Christian, so naturally comprehension of this complex issue is not particularly a question of faith. I feel that Senator Elect Cory Gardner (R-CO) has actually found an important issue to tackle, making the pill more readily available by allowing it to be sold over-the-counter. I feel that Gardner is striking a more healthy balance of opinion amongst my own party. Moreover, Gardner’s position doesn’t upset the establishment clause as Obamacare’s requirements do.
However, Erin’s column last week did not stop at abortion, I take offense to the accusation of the Republican Party as being a merger of religion and politics, as Erin claimed it to be. For the sake of discussion, let’s take that accusation to hold true and try to correct it. Should all religious individuals be barred from politics, simply because they vote in a way that reflects their (and more often than not their constituent’s) religious convictions? The answer is no. Should religious members of Congress abstain from voting on issues on which their vote may be issued by their religious convictions? The answer is no again. Religion being reflected in congressional voting patterns of member is okay; and if it wasn’t, it would be the voters who would need to determine that.
Finally to claim that Republicans are somehow in the wrong for being composed of a majority of practicing Christians is not only wrong but to an extent hypocritical. Democrats time and time again claim to be courting Hispanic voters, whom are overwhelmingly Catholic (about 80% according to Pew Research) and may have dissenting opinions within the Democratic Party on social issues. According to Alexander de Tocqueville, the unique way in which religion in the United States occupies its own sphere of influence outside of government, but instead in society and politics is one of America’s greatest strengths; and I agree. Religion and religious groups (Tocqueville praises the Catholics) help foster civic participation and engagement that are critical to a democratic society.
