To the Editor:
Ross Douthat presents no argument for thinking that appealing to “the democratic process” is the appropriate way to adjudicate reproductive rights. He alleges that “if abortion were returned to the democratic process, this landscape”—who may get an abortion, and under what circumstances—“would change dramatically.” No doubt it would.
Certainly allowing things that have been found to be basic rights or constitutionally mandated entitlements to be renegotiated in the political arena would effect a lot of changes: it is clear that a sizable number of people would embrace torture, reject interracial marriage and, it is alleged, even severely circumscribe freedoms articulated in the Bill of Rights.
But this is, of course, no reason for allowing such issues to be decided by “the democratic process.” The proper bounds of the exercise of personal autonomy and the proper restrictions of the entitlement to privacy are constitutional matters, not things to be decided by popular vote.
N. Ann Davis
South Royalton, Vt., June 9, 2009
The writer is a professor of human relations and of philosophy at Pomona College.
Note from KBJ: Suppose Professor Davis is correct that "The proper bounds of the exercise of personal autonomy and the proper restrictions of the entitlement to privacy are constitutional matters, not things to be decided by popular vote." Then the Constitution should be amended to protect fetuses. It was amended to prohibit slavery; it can be amended to prohibit abortion.
