Gloucester Daily Times Debate on Abortion (69), November 1, 1986

Don’t Trample the Unborn

The Times’ recent editorial opposing ballot Question No. 1 is disappointing. It seeks to strike a middle ground by saying the referendum does a disservice to both sides. If so, who do pro-lfers advocate it — because they think it does them a disservice?

Clearly, the writer of this opinion has not interacted with my recent My View column. My whole thrust is that the 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and the 1981 Moe v. Secretary of Administration and Finance Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling, were acts of judicial fiat, where the courts overstepped their constitutional boundaries.

The courts are designed to interpret law, not to write it. The legislatures are constituted to write law. Question No. 1 seeks to restore a proper check and balance in this regard. The Supreme Judicial Court is not meant to overrule the legislature, it is meant to balance it — a great difference.

The editorial would have had more integrity if it defined and defended its philosophy of judicial :activism” in opposition to judicial “constructionism.” But alas, these real issues of law and society get easily lost in the midst of politicking and women and their unborn continue to be trampled.

John C. Rankin, New England Christian Action Council, 11 Pleasant St.