Related articles and links |  1 of 2

•

Some critics are calling social conservatives hypocrites for opposing Roe v. Wade and siding with the federal government in Gonzales v. Oregon, the assisted suicide case heard by the Supreme Court in October. You can't be for states' rights in one case and against them in the other. Or both for and against "judicial activism."

Though we often argue cases using political and legal reasoning, critics need to realize that these are not the central issues for us. We're against Oregon's law because it promotes taking human life, radically demeans personhood, and ultimately and idolatrously deconstructs the image of God that we as humans bear. And we need to be clear about that.

Let's look at the political argument first. Critics point out that Oregon's assisted suicide law was twice endorsed by voters in statewide referendums. When then-Attorney General John Ashcroft declared the use of federally controlled substances in assisted suicide a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act and not a "legitimate medical purpose," he was violating principles of states' rights and democracy, they say.

The Wall Street Journal was among the critics. Roe v. Wade, it said in an editorial, "substituted the opinion of a handful of jurists for what would have been a contentious, but in the end healthier, open, and democratic debate over where to draw the line on the legality of abortion. … A finding for the attorney general in the Oregon case would repeat that mistake on the question of assisted suicide."

But a finding against Oregon would not be a blow against states' rights. As The Oregonian associate editor David Reinhard noted, "States' rights doesn't mean a state can take over or ignore an established area of federal regulation." Nor are those of us against Oregon's law necessarily siding with that new conservative Christian bogeyman, "judicial activism."

As important as politics is, though, we need to regularly lift up moral issues involved. Yes, some reply, but isn't it better to speak Washington's indigenous language of power and rights than to speak about transcendent truths that may be dismissed as irrelevant in a pluralistic society? And isn't there a trend to write off "moral disapproval" as not just irrelevant to policy, but also as an unconscionable sign of "animus"?

Yet by speaking only in terms of power and rights—states' rights, the rights of the attorney general, doctors' rights, the right to life—we do a tremendous disservice to justice and to God.

When we speak as lawyers in a court of law or as doctors at a medical inquiry, naturally, we must use the language appropriate to the context. But when we speak in our capacity as Christians or as a church, political language can become a liability. As the criticisms above show, people can become confused about what is central. Furthermore, when we fail to mention the real reasons we're against assisted suicide, we are dishonest. We also risk suggesting that our political ideology and our prudential judgments are somehow moral or Christian or even absolutes. As it was for the prophets, for us the ultimate issue is justice, not federalism; idolatry, not "judicial activism."

Maintaining this focus can also remind us that complete victory this side of the kingdom is ever elusive. For instance, if the Supreme Court affirms the Ashcroft Directive—which hinges on the use of federally controlled substances to kill people—Oregon could still rewrite its law without the use of a federally controlled substance. It should go without saying that we would be against that law, too, and that federalism or states' rights or judicial activism has nothing to do with it.

next page... |  1 of 2

December 2005, Vol. 49, No. 12