The Latest Bushism is Not so Humorous

As I was reading the Daily yesterday, I came across the article, "Bush bans partial-birth abortions" (November 5, 2003). I was nearing the end of the article when I read the President's declaration that "this right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government- it comes from the creator of life." I nearly jumped out of my seat.

This statement is severely flawed, both in its content and in the larger context of abortion in America. The first portion of the statement suggests that the United States government cannot grant or deny life to an unborn fetus. Does this comment seem erroneous to anyone? The President made this statement after signing a bill that indeed grants the right to life to a fetus in the circumstance of a partial-birth abortion. Conversely, in 1973, the Supreme Court granted women the right to choose in Roe v. Wade -- therefore denying a fetus of the right to life. Government can, and in fact does (with the passing of this new bill) both grant and deny the right to life.

The second part of the President's statement brings the larger issue of religion and politics into the forefront. We have established that declaring the right to life does not come from "the creator" but indeed from the government. What really got to me, however, was the President's invocation of religious terminology in the abortion debate -- a debate that should begin and end (at least in legal terms) within the confines of federal legislation.

I believe that the separation of church and state is one of the strongest pillars of our society. It protects the inalienable right of human beings to worship whatever "creator" they believe in, or, if it be the case, in no creator at all. Another important duty of this constitutional premise should be to defend citizens against their unwilling submission to the religious beliefs of others. To my utter dismay, this fundamental principle of any truly free society is perniciously undermined when a President of the United States brings religious terminology (and perhaps religious belief) into a legal issue.

The statement, if I have read an accurate account of it, is quite crafty. The President does not say "god" but, the "creator." What is the significance of this semantic tactic? By using the term "creator," the President refutes the argument that I have briefly explored above. He could rebuke me by saying that his use of the word creator does not invoke his religious beliefs, but acknowledges that life should only be granted or denied by whatever entity makes life possible -- a seemingly legitimate claim. Unfortunately, there are two things wrong with Mr. Bush's hypothetical response to me.

First of all, the term "creator" has undeniably religious connotations. The debate of creationism versus evolution is perhaps one of the more contested metaphysical problems in scientific and religious philosophy, and supports the use of the term creator as unequivocally religious in nature. Additionally (and I must admit this is pure conjecture), it should not be overlooked that the President's own religious beliefs may have somehow made their way into his politics. Mr. Bush is a devout Christian, and while I may be misjudging him, it seems like he fails to see the line between religion and politics -- at least as it should be drawn in this country.

The second problem with using the term "creator" is its ambiguity. Whose creator are we talking about here? What exactly did he, she, or it create? Does this creator indeed have the right, the power, or the jurisdiction to grant and deny life? These questions are, of course, unanswerable. They prove that Mr. Bush's "creator" may not be every American citizen's "creator," thereby affirming the term's religious implications. I hope Mr. Bush realizes that he has made a serious miscalculation in his choice of words (it certainly wouldn't be the first time). The President has the right, just as all of us do, to believe in whatever creator he wants, and to grant that creator whatever authority he sees fit. But he does not have the right to let those beliefs infiltrate federal legislation.

These criticisms can be assimilated in my ultimate argument -- religious terminology and ideology have no place in the legal terms of the abortion debate because it is not some arbitrary "creator," but the legal structure of this country that has the power to grant and deny life. The argument can, and should be, extended to all political issues in this country that brush up against religious belief (the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse, gay marriage, the "one nation under god" clause, etc.). The democratic institutions of our country and the republican nature of our legal system should be the only arbiters of United States legislation. When religious affirmations come into play, we risk the usurpation of our shared freedoms by unshared beliefs.

Todd Walters is a senior majoring in Biology.