Protecting Marriage
As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand that the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench. Critical to Constitutional balance is ensuring that, where state and local governments do act to preserve the traditional family, the Courts must not overstep their authority and thwart the Constitutional right of the people to decide this question.
The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.
As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers reserved for the States the authority and responsibility to protect and strengthen the vital institutions of our civil society. They did so to ensure that the voices of America's families could not be ignored by an indifferent national government or suffocated through filibusters and clever legislative maneuvering in Congress. Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life
Overturning Roe v. Wade
John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.
Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, "At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level."
Promoting Adoption
In 1993, John McCain and his wife, Cindy, adopted a little girl from Mother Teresa's orphanage in Bangladesh. She has been a blessing to the McCain family and helped make adoption advocacy a personal issue for the Senator.
The McCain family experience is not unique; millions of families have had their lives transformed by the adoption of a child. As president, motivated by his personal experience, John McCain will seek ways to promote adoption as a first option for women struggling with a crisis pregnancy. In the past, he cosponsored legislation to prohibit discrimination against families with adopted children, to provide adoption education, and to permit tax deductions for qualified adoption expenses, as well as to remove barriers to interracial and inter-ethnic adoptions.
1 comment:
Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision, indeed. Why? Because it was premised on the idea that a right to privacy is implied by the Constitution. In other words, that case set the precedent for jamming damn near anything one wants in the Constitution, thus expanding the ability of courts to legislate.
As we know, there is no right to privacy set out in the Constitution and that makes Roe v. Wade look like yet another decision by a Court that wants to take part in the legislative process. I prefer to have matters such as abortion decided by the people through their representatives -- the will of which the courts tend to ignore.
Bear in mind that I'm not an opponent of abortion. Frankly, I just don't care much one way or the other. On one hand, abortion is a barbaric and horrible practice. On the other, there is an argument to be made for women having the right to choose whether to carry a child to term or not.
Regardless, this is an issue that can and should be addressed by the individual states -- the kind of thing that the 10th Amendment (which the Court has largely ignored) specifically reserves to the states. I'm rather have my fellow Arkansans arguing over this issue and coming to a decision rather than letting the Supreme Court step in and handle it.
I've noticed that the left, however, is firmly against leaving this issue to the states. Why is that? Are they afraid of the result? Do they believe we're too stupid to come to a rational decision on this issue? the mind boggles...
Visit The Natural State Hawg!
Post a Comment