As the snow fell Monday morning, the streets of Medford and Somerville were not the only victims. On the academic quad, the four inches or so of snowfall quietly covered 1,000 white flags planted by the Tufts Republicans club to commemorate the 33rd anniversary of what they believe to be the incorrect Supreme Court ruling reached during the case Roe v. Wade.
A well-written Viewpoint published that day entitled "A day of mourning," by Doug Kingman and Ford Adams of the Tufts Republicans, highlighted the sobering facts about the abortion trend in America, and made the case for a pro-life standpoint.
The sad fact is, yes, it is very distressing that so many distraught women in the United States have had to make the difficult and life-changing decision to abandon their unborn child. However, overturning Roe v. Wade poses an even more serious threat to women whose lives are under imminent threat from childbirth.
This important fact is easily overlooked by the pro-life camp, and cannot go unstated. Additionally, the constitutional right to privacy, now threatened on numerous fronts by institutional forces, is under direct attack by those who would seek to impose their worldview on every woman in America.
Moreover, conservative politicians' opposition to both emergency and non-emergency contraceptives has backed more women than ever into a position in which abortion is suddenly a viable, and sometimes necessary alternative. The fundamental fact remains that a pregnant woman's health should remain a concern between her and her doctor - not the government.
In writing "the abortion debate has once again taken center stage," the authors acknowledge the existence of the contentious debate being played out on Capitol Hill. However, they choose to give scant consideration to the efforts of the many pro-choice politicians trying hard not to compromise the private and constitutional choice of a woman.
Pro-choice, as is often stated but rarely acknowledged by pro-life activists, is not pro-abortion. Rather, the decision to be pro-choice arises out of an understanding of the ethical hazards surrounding the termination of a pregnancy, and also from a respect for differences of opinion - a commitment to ideological tolerance.
Importantly, the authors of "A day of mourning" must be congratulated for reminding readers that, "abortion is not the only option for women with an unexpected pregnancy." Rarely is enough emphasis placed on the wide variety of alternatives available to unexpectedly pregnant women in today's abortion culture war.
Steering couples and expectant mothers towards these options should be a high priority of our elected legislatures; not endless mudslinging at the expense of a functioning democracy.
That said, individual choice remains a strong founding principle of the American political system and is firmly enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Without it, we would have little to be proud of. Denial of a woman's private choice to oversee her own personal health is an affront to that founding principle.
As Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr. prepares, more likely than not, to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, questions have come up regarding the potential challenge to Roe v. Wade that arises from a majority of justices appearing to favor the pro-life platform. If the newly confirmed justices are indeed committed to, and focused on, upholding precedent while exercising judicial restraint, then they certainly must realize that great harm could befall public health as well as an American citizen's right to privacy if Roe v. Wade were overturned.
The importance of life is not a question for the realms of politics or partisanship. There is true common ground between pro-choice and pro-life advocates, as both groups seek to decrease the number of abortions performed each day.
However, the way to achieve this goal should not include an infringement upon established privacy rights. Unfortunately, intolerant ambition has led an elected minority (the most recent USA/CNN/Gallup poll finds that 53 percent of America is pro-choice) to seize the issue for partisan purposes, ultimately driving a wedge between opposing schools of thought rather than finding a genuine solution that both sides can agree upon.
Patrick Roath is a freshman with an undeclared major; he is Local Vice President of the Tufts American Civil Liberties Union. This was written with freshman Thomas Eager, who is also undeclared; he is a contributing writer to the Tufts Daily's Sports Section. Both are members of the Tufts Democrats.
