41

Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined the Supreme Court in 1993 when I was 41. I have enjoyed her guardianship of my rights for over a quarter of a century without question. Suddenly, with her death, I am filled with doubts.

Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination for Justice of the Supreme Court creates all kinds of turmoil in my mind. I am not alone in this internal struggle. On the one hand, a nomination of another woman to the Court is absolutely appropriate; given that women make up half of the American population, I wouldn’t be opposed to mandating an equality ratio on the Court.

On the other hand, there is this sticky wicket of personal beliefs vs. the law. A Supreme Court Justice has to swear allegiance to the law, and in this regard Barrett’s statements putting the law ahead of her personal beliefs should give me comfort. She has also made enough statements to the effect that adhering to one’s religious beliefs are the ultimate goal of a good human being.

I’m a Quaker. We joined the Society of Friends when our son was born. We were motivated by respect for Quaker principles and by concern for the possible renewal of the draft that sent our male friends and acquaintances to the Viet Nam War. That sentence is loaded with inconsistencies and biases. But it’s the kind of calculation that every American has to make in an effort to balance respect for the law and adherence to personal beliefs.

I’m not in favor of abortion, but it’s not my business to decide for someone else whether she is willing and able to take on a pregnancy. This is a legal issue: a woman’s right to privacy and self-determination takes precedence over what I believe. I have close friends who have chosen abortion and I honor their decisions.

I’m also not in favor of the death penalty. This is a moral issue: we the people have no right to take anyone’s life. The law keeps waffling on this issue.

I’m in favor of euthanasia. A moral and legal issue: an individual has the right to end his or her own life and should not be prevented from making that determination by a group sense of appropriateness. My mother has repeatedly asked me to “give her a pill,” but I won’t do that because I don’t want to go to prison.

I am in favor of strict gun control. This is a legal issue, not a personal belief, and the Second Amendment needs to be clarified, updated, and changed.

In short, there is not a clear separation of moral beliefs and respect for the law. But there are two clear guidances that we all need to apply: 1) my moral beliefs are only my own, no one else’s, and 2) respect for the law requires amending, adjusting, and writing new laws constantly.

Should there be a law requiring parity on the Supreme Court? No. That’s a personal belief of my own. But there should be a flurry of laws to carry out the work of the 14th Amendment, so admirably initiated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, affirming the equal protection clause. As so many writers have pointed out, that’s how Amy Coney Barrett got to be a Supreme Court nominee; now it’s up to her to guard it for the rest of us.