Part 2 of 3 re Future of Roe v Wade, abortion, and Michigan legislature: Interview with Dr Robert Borer, Republican

Part 1 of this series looked at questions likely to come before the Michigan legislature following leak of a forthcoming United States Supreme Court finding that would revisit the validity of Roe v Wade. [1]

This November, voters in the newly-drawn 33rd District for the Michigan legislature will elect one of two candidates to represent them in Lansing. With that as current backdrop, Saline Journal put the following questions to each via eMail on May 4, with responses received prior to publication of Part 1 yesteray. Prior to the following, neither has seen any answers of the other. [2]

Following is our Q&A with Dr Robert Borer, Republican, of Saline Michigan. [3]

Saline Journal: “Is the matter of abortion more appropriately addressed at the national- or state-level? Explain.”

Robert Borer: “This is absolutely a state-level issue.

There is nothing in the US Constitution that allows the Federal government to have any authority over the issue of abortion. Every state has laws on the books relating to how abortion is handled in their state. The State level of government is where this issue rightfully should be debated and decided.

Saline Journal: “How would you balance ‘personal autonomy’ and ‘compassion,’ with ‘public interests’ and ‘legal’ considerations, in fulfilling duties as a member of the 2023 Michigan Legislature?”

Robert Borer: “The role of government in providing solutions to complex problems must always be balanced with acting in a fiscally responsible way and simultaneously upholding the rights, liberties and freedoms of all, not just the few. The role of government is not to provide for every need of its citizens. Nor is it the role of government to ignore issues faced by its citizens. There is a balance that needs to be struck.

In all decisions that I will be faced with this balance will need to be achieved. In all decisions that I will be faced with, my decisions will always be governed by first and foremost the US Constitution, which can never be violated or compromised. And secondly my decisions will always be governed by a list of core convictions that I will never compromise. Among these are God, morality, life, liberty, family, the pursuit of happiness and freedom.

Saline Journal: “Do you have any recommendations on how this ‘debate’ might move forward toward reasonable resolution, without creating needless acrimony or casting of ‘winners versus losers’?”

Robert Borer: “I can’t think of a more polarizing topic than abortion. I can’t think of positions on either side of the debate being more mutually exclusive. There is no doubt this is an issue where there is little to no middle ground. So one side will undoubtedly be happy with an outcome, while the other will be bitterly disappointed.

I’m not sure this topic can be debated without acrimony. One set of ‘winners’ have had it their way since 1973, while the other side has been bitterly unhappy with that status quo. I’m not sure there is a way on this topic to not have ‘winners’ versus ‘losers.’ But ultimately our country can only function properly when the majority guide the rules and laws for all to follow. It’s up to the citizens to accept outcomes which are less than what they want to see happen and live life as satisfactorily as they are able.

When agreeing to the protections afforded by forming a government with which we all agree to live together under, every issue that we live our life by will not always line up perfectly with our personal desire. But, just like in sports where there are most definitely winners and losers, one’s character and integrity are both tested and displayed based on how we behave when we are both the winner as well as the loser.

Saline Journal provided each candidate with the same list of issues and asked that they be priorities, beginning with most important.

Candidates were then asked, “What is your rationale for placing abortion as you have?”

Robert Borer:

Economy
Fentanyl
Abortion
COVID-19
DEI

I have ranked these issues based on their overall importance and impact as well as the percentage of the population affected. The higher the population affected, the bigger the impact on overall quality of life, the higher the ranking.

The economy affects everyone and has the most impact on one’s quality of life, is the most impactful for survival and thriving and thus takes top priority.

The remaining issues affect segments of the population to one degree or another. Fentanyl is an issue from improper or over-management of pain through prescription opioid medication. Not everyone has pain managed with medication, thus this is a smaller subset of the population; yet I see it as a very manageable problem utilizing more holistic approaches to pain management.

The next highest population would be women of child-bearing age who would fall into the abortion debate. The next smaller category are the elderly and co-morbid who are truly the only part of the population at risk to COVID-19. Finally, the category I would devote the least energy towards would be DEI.

Saline Journal: “Has the landscape of the mid-term elections changed as a result of the Supreme Court abortion delibration disclosure? If so, in what aspect(s)?”

Robert Borer: “Possibly. If Roe v Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court, sending the issue back to be decided by the states, abortion will certainly become an issue that will be addressed by state-level government. This may become a more significant campaign issue for state-level races. State-level candidates will more than likely have to clearly articulate their position on the issue of abortion as voters begin to view this issue with greater importance.

Saline Journal: “Are there ‘lessons to be learned’ for future legislators through emerging questioning of Roe v Wade precedent and the ‘May surprise’?

If so, describe what you see as those lessons.

Robert Borer: “One lesson that hopefully will be learned is what the proper role of the judiciary should be. The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, should not create law by interpreting the case in front of them, like Roe v Wade, to create new law.

Hopefully, as this reversal is examined and the cases merits are stacked up against the Constitution, it becomes clear that the judiciary instead of strictly interpreting the law as written have in fact created new law by interpreting the case in a way that furthers a progressive political agenda. Hopefully, the examination of =Roe v Wade will bring greater attention to what is constitutional and what is not constitutional.

In my view it is irresponsible, and unconstitutional for 9 individuals to create new law by ruling outside of their jurisdiction, instead of law being created by the legislative branch as our government was designed.

Saline Journal: “Finally, what do you, from your perspective, think needs to be added to this discussion, today?”

Robert Borer: “One interesting discussion that will hopefully follow out of the ruling on Roe v Wade is the proper jurisdiction of the federal government. I would challenge anyone to read the US Constitution to determine what the Federal government has jurisdiction over. Spoiler alert: It certainly does not have jurisdiction over Education, FDA, EPA, FTA, CDC, …. I could go on for a long, long time.

I would challenge anyone who thinks they understand the Constitution to actually read the Constitution and determine what in fact the federal government has jurisdiction over. I believe the answer would surprise most people. I believe this would be a truly productive conversation for everyone to engage in.

Our Q&A with Dr Felicia Brabec, Democrat, of Pittsfield Township, will run here on Saline Journal tomorrow. [4]

References