2 of 2

This distinction between our moral foundation and our prudential tactics is crucial in the big picture. The conflagration over the failed Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court illustrated that the conservative coalition is tentative at best. Religious conservatives are not social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, or economic liberals, but we share beliefs that overlap with the others, and we form alliances on various points. Still, on other points, we must stand against these allies and tell them they are wrong. (And when we do so, it should be because they truly are wrong, not because we are aiming to build political capital with another group.)

Realists and pragmatists may counter that this isn't how things are done. Better to focus with political allies on "a time to be silent and a time to speak" (Ecc. 3:7), than on "a time to embrace and a time to refrain" (Ecc. 3:5). Moralists, prophets, and others who aren't team players win few ears in lawmaking, it is said.

True, in day-to-day politics, give-and-take and forming alliances is the way to gain numbers and get things done. At the same time, we are wise to remember that the issues ultimately at stake are not those the Court is actually debating.

Yet even in this debate, there are signs of transcendence. When Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act, U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement told the Supreme Court, "They were concerned about drug abuse, not for its own sake, but for the debilitating effect it has on people's lives, for its tendency to destroy lives." That value on human life trumps any political or legal values we might hold, and it is something we must shout from the housetops.

Copyright © 2005 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

A transcript of the oral arguments is available at the Supreme Court website. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times have summaries, and the Legal Information Institute has analysis. SCOTUSBlog has predictions and background.

The Wall Street Journal and David Reinhard articles are available online.

CT's earlier coverage of the Oregon assisted-suicide law includes:

Ashcroft's Revenge | Challenge to suicide law gets new life. (March 16, 2005)

Death Wishes | Circuit Court supports state's primary role in assisted suicide. (July 15, 2004)

Severe Mercy in Oregon | How two dying patients dealt with a new right: When to die. (June 14, 1999)

Lies We've Heard Before | The same flawed arguments that legalized abortion are now used to support physician-assisted suicide. (July 13, 1998)

Bill Would Limit Lethal Drugs | A new bill before Congress could prohibit the use of federally controlled drugs for physician-assisted suicide. But critics say the measure would restrict legitimate use of painkillers for terminally ill patients. (October 26, 1998)

What Really Died in Oregon | The state's voter-approved suicide law represents more than an extreme belief in personal autonomy. (Jan. 12, 1998)

Doctor-Assisted Suicide Stirs Physicians' Fears | Tremors from last month's major medical and moral earthquake in Oregon soon will be felt across the nation. (Dec. 8, 1997)

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

December 2005, Vol. 49, No. 12