Where do you draw the line?

Judge John G. Roberts has left little hard evidence of his views on abortion in recent years and is widely expected to try to avoid the issue in his coming confirmation hearings.

But there is little mystery about the views of his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, a Roman Catholic lawyer from the Bronx whose pro bono work for Feminists for Life is drawing intense interest in the ideologically charged environment of a Supreme Court confirmation debate.

Some abortion opponents view her activities as a clear signal that the Robertses are committed to their cause; supporters of abortion rights fear the same thing. Others say that drawing a direct line from her activities to how her husband might rule on the Supreme Court - assuming that he not only shares her views, but would also act on them to overturn 32 years of legal precedents - is both politically risky and in bad form.

I would have to agree with that assessment. While I might find Mrs. Roberts’ position on abortion abhorrent, this is still (nominally) a free country, and she is free to act on her beliefs, just as any other American is free to do. The question, of course, is how or even if her political activities should reflect on her husband’s qualifications for sitting on the highest court in the land?

To be honest, while there is a part of me that would like to disqualify anyone committed to ending a woman’s right to choose, I cannot in good faith oppose Roberts because of his wife’s views and activities. I can oppose Roberts because of his own views and activities, of which we still know precious little. His wife’s anti-abortion activities, while abhorrent to me, are well within her rights, and should not reflect on her husband’s qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court.

No less a Democratic stalwart than Senator Edward M. Kennedy said, at a breakfast meeting with reporters on Friday, that Mrs. Roberts’s work “ought to be out of bounds.”

Advocates on both sides have long acknowledged that with this issue, the personal is often political. But Mrs. Roberts has led an independent and unapologetic life that defies any attempt at pigeonholing.

Mrs. Roberts, who declined to be interviewed for this article, was not recruited by Feminists for Life, but sought the group out about a decade ago and offered her services as a lawyer, said its president, Serrin Foster. The group was reorganizing at the time and beginning to focus its work on college campuses. Its mission statement, driven home in advertising in recent years, says: “Abortion is a reflection that our society has failed to meet the needs of women. Women deserve better than abortion.”

Mrs. Roberts served on the board of the organization for four years, and later provided legal services. Ms. Foster said that as an adoptive parent, Mrs. Roberts made contributions that included urging the group to focus more on the needs of biological mothers, and adding a biological mother to the board of directors.

Ms. Foster said Feminists for Life was committed not only to ending abortion, but also to making it “unthinkable” by providing every woman with the assistance she needs. Reversing Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion, is a goal, she said, “but not enough.”

Of course, if John Roberts had engaged in this sort of activity, Democrats and the pro-choice lobby would be obligated to oppose his nomination with every resource at their disposal. While it is highly likely that Roberts shares his wife’s views, there is no indication as yet that he would use his seat on the Court to work towards overturning Roe v. Wade. This is exactly why the nomination process is so crucial. John Roberts’ record, career, and judicial philosophy can and should be parsed to the nth degree. His wife’s philosophy and activities, however abhorrent or disagreeable, should be out of bounds. Unless you want to be seen as attacking her Catholic faith and her free speech rights….