Many students might think the U.S. Supreme Court is far enough
from UCLA to warrant an excuse to be apathetic about what
transpires there. But Tuesday, we had a frightening glimpse of just
how profoundly the Court could impact students’ lives.
A 1989 survey released by the Senate revealed that Court-nominee
Harriet Miers strongly supported banning abortions, even advocating
an amendment to the Constitution that would reflect her
beliefs.
This is the first indication of Miers’ political leanings
on abortion since she was nominated to the court in early
October.
It is unknown whether her views will affect her vote if she is
confirmed, but the survey shows a hint of a bias that could be
detrimental to the precedents established under Roe v. Wade.
The confirmation of Miers as a justice would be disastrous to
the health and liberty of women across the nation ““
especially women at the university level.
According to a 2001 study by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 51.2 percent of women who have legal abortions are
under the age of 25 ““ in other words, mostly high school- and
college-aged women.
The problem with these revelations concerning Miers does not
necessarily lie in her beliefs, but rather in her willingness to
participate as an activist for movements against abortion.
In the 1989 survey, Miers answered yes when asked if she would
participate in “pro-life rallies and special events” as
well as to use her “influence as an elected official”
to further “the pro-life cause.” She was a candidate
for the Dallas City Council at the time.
A person so strongly and obviously opinionated about an issue
““ and who is ready to “actively support” that
issue ““ is an inappropriate candidate for the Supreme Court,
no matter what dogma he or she follows.
It will also make for a bruising fight in the Senate over her
confirmation, and make Washington even more polarized than it
already is.
Though Miers recently criticized “judicial activism”
in written responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee, her past
actions suggest a precedent of blurring the lines between public
servant and super-legislator ““ a characteristic undesirable
in a Supreme Court justice.
Those who disagree with Miers, and more importantly with her
ascension to the Supreme Court, need to vocalize their discontent.
They need to contact lobby groups and senators with their
concerns.
For the time being, California remains a relatively safe state
in terms of protecting women’s reproductive rights. Still,
who knows what a lifelong judicial position could mean, especially
for a candidate whose past indicates she might be willing to
overturn Roe v. Wade?
Miers told the judiciary committee that she initially did not
want to be considered for a position on the high court. To our
great misfortune, she was eventually swayed and accepted the
nomination anyway. Hopefully, this mistake will be rectified before
she reaches the confirmation hearing.