Where the Rubber meets the road

Left, right, and where the rubber meets the road.
It has been said that Trump is a danger to our democracy. At least by the NY Times and Washington Post. But then, some would question the wisdom of that statement, and perhaps ask HOW? Others state that the Citizens United decision threatened our democracy.
Few seem to say that rigging the Democratic primary was a threat to our democracy, at least to me it appears that way. In my opinion, most of the stated threats to our democracy come from the left and are directed towards the right. Some would argue that spying on political opponents is a tyrannical challenge to democratic principles. Some would even go so far as calling it a Gestapo like tactic.
Recently, the legislative branch of our government ceded authority to the executive branch in the matter of families at the border. Is that a threat to our democracy? If so, who made the choice to dodge the responsibility? I suggest that when the legislature chooses inaction versus voting, their behavior threatens our democratic processes as they relate to checks and balances.
Now, today, we will deal with a material and substantial choice about the direction of our Supreme Court. The debate may be framed as the court striking a fatal blow to women’s rights. A frontal assault to equality may be claimed by others. The voices that make those claims may be elected officials in the legislative branch of our democracy. Others will be pundits endlessly repeating the parroted talking points.
Let us pretend for a moment that the battle over the Supreme Court is about democracy and democratic principles. Certainly, we cannot criticize a nominee based on her religious beliefs. If we could, then we could ban Muslims because of their beliefs instead of national security issues. Or are we now pro Muslim and anti-Catholic? Should we have not elected Kennedy because of his religion?
Perhaps Catholicism is just a red herring concerning the larger issue of abortion. Women’s rights must be guaranteed by the courts. Not the legislative branch. Is that democratic? Is a litmus test a democratic or autocratic notion? Is achieving policy aims by a small group of judges reflective of democratic or autocratic values? Are those that would have a small panel of unelected judges create policy a threat to our democracy?
Let us simply state that all women should be able to choose whether they want to have a child. Women must be able to have complete control of their reproductive health. Let us then stipulate that Roe vs Wade affirms these rights for women. Simple enough, for women to have equality and freedom their right to abortion should be equal to the right to bear arms.
Or is that a big red herring? The real issue is that women, with unwanted pregnancies, should have unfettered access to abortion services. That is because they have no other choices to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Abstinence is not a choice. Rubbers (condoms) are not a choice. The pill is not a choice. Women cannot choose IUD’s. If a woman makes a bad choice, she can choose the morning after pill or an abortion to remedy her previous choice. Clearly, with or without Roe vs Wade, women have many choices. The issue then turns to, who should be held responsible for the choices a woman makes?
Back to our democracy. Is it important that life is an inalienable right? Is that foundational principal no longer important? Furthermore, if we do not have the right to life as an underpinning of a just society, where does the right to food, shelter and healthcare come from?
In summary, if you champion our democratic processes and values, you should not rely on the courts to create rights. You should rely on the legislative branch to pass laws that protect or grant rights to individuals. Perhaps equal protection applies across the spectrum of all people and perhaps only some are entitled to life. Perhaps people see the issue differently and that is healthy in a democracy.