itself out of the picture by declaring itself—and its predecessors—nincompetent to approve or condemn social regulationsnthat are within the purview of state governments. Atntimes Justice Scalia seems to be alone in understanding thatnthe Court is limited in the good it can seek to accomplish. Innhis concurrent opinion on the parental consent decision,nScalia reviewed the confusing course of judicial reasoningnon abortion, concluding that “the tools for this job are not tonbe found in the lawyer’s — and hence not the judge’snworkbox. I continue to dissent from this enterprise ofndevising an Abortion Code, and from the illusion that wenhave authority to do so.”nJustice Scalia’s scruples may have more to do with hisntheology than with judicial restraint, but it is a good sign thatnhe also insisted in the Cruzan “right to die” case that “thenFederal Courts have no business in this field.” We can onlynhope that his skepticism will spread to the other “conservatives”non the Court. The left has no monopoly on judicialnactivism (Chief Justice Rehnquist has been almost asnzealous in the service of government as Earl Warren), andnwhile Rehnquist’s political views are vastly more wholesomenthan his two predecessors, he ought to recollect, from timento time, that he is not a legislative or execudve official. If thenjustices wish to govern Missouri or Minnesota, let themnresign their positions and repair to the hinterland where theyncan run for office with all the tricks of honest chicanery fornwhich American polihcs is celebrated.nThe debate over abortion and euthanasia has been cast innthe predictable form of conflicting rights: the right to die vs.nthe right to life in Missouri, where the parents of NancynCruzan — lying hopelessly in a coma — have decided to putnan end to the medical profession’s arrogation of the power ofnlife and death; and in the Minnesota and Ohio parentalnconsent cases, a woman’s right to an abortion vs. the parents’nrights vs. the rights of the unborn. However, neither rulingntook much account of the family per se as a basic socialninstitution. For the Court, it is individuals that matter, andnwhen a person is incapable of making rational decisionsn(because of age or condition), responsibility may be delegatednto family members or friends. The contested point innMissouri was not over who had the power — state ornfamily — to make the decision to cut off life support, butnover how explicitly Miss Cruzan had stated her wishes.n(Even where patients have made their intentions plain, theynmay still be kept alive artificially, as in the Edward Winterncase commented on in the July Chronicles.) In the parentalnconsent decisions a great deal of time has been wasted — asnJustice Scalia pointed out — in discussing whether it wasnpossible or preferable, where a pregnant minor’s parentsnwere divorced, to require two-parent as opposed to oneparentnnotification.nBut while the family is a legal institution, it cannot benmade or unmade by law. That responsibility lies in the handsnof nature, which compels us to mate and rear children, andnof Cod, who has given us clear instructions in Scripture andnin the teachings of the church. A friend, no matter howndear, is not the same thing as a parent, and while it might benuseful to permit us in some cases to delegate a life-and-deathndecision to some trusted friend, the presumptive humannauthority must always reside in the family, the ultimate basisnboth for human society and for government.nWhat is at stake in both these cases is really familynautonomy. Who better than family can decide on anquestion like abortion or the removal of life support? Judges?nSocial workers? Policemen? In fact, neither the Minnesotannor Ohio laws go far enough: neither actually gives familiesnan absolute veto power over abortions; they only requirenparental notification, and even then, it is possible to getnaround even this minimal requirement, if a girl can shownsome plausible reason why her parents should not beninformed.nThe main question facing the Court is not the sanctity ofnlife or individual rights but the liberty of the family to makenits own decisions without interference. A similar point lies atnthe heart of the cases of parents who, out of religiousnscruples, refuse to seek professional medical attention forntheir sick children. No one would want to countenance childnneglect, but no one in his right mind would want to turnnover life-and-death decisions to the American MedicalnAssociation. What are the odds, today, of surviving to 70 fornpeople who don’t go to doctors as opposed to people whondo? In individual cases, of course, physicians save countiessnlives, but if one can believe the physicians themselves, a largenproportion of life-threatening operations performed arenabsolutely unnecessary. We do know that when doctors andnhospitals go on strike, the death rate falls.nStill, what if it could be established that the child mortalitynrate is much higher among religious groups that eschewnmedical treatment? One study published in the Journal ofnthe American Medical Association (September 22-29,n1989) compared Christian Science college graduates with ancontrol group. The authors concluded that Christian Scientistsndo, indeed, have a lower life expectancy and, what isnworse, die from cancer at a rate that is twice the nationalnaverage. Still, a man’s health is his own business. As angeneral principle, however, it would be preferable to attacknthe problem directly by discouraging the spread of religionsnthat sacrifice children. The Romans outlawed the Druids,nbecause they practiced human sacrifice, and it is time fornthese United States to do something about Santeria. If—nand I do say if—a plausible case can be made to includenChristian Science or the Jehovah’s Witnesses, then it isnbetter to outlaw a religious sect than to allow the state tonintrude further into the family.nFamily autonomy is the only solid foundation for a freensociety, and the status of the family as a primary socialninstitution was an established fact both of ancient law and ofnthe major philosophical systems of antiquity and the MiddlenAges. In America, these ancient views of the family, alreadynembedded in the Common Law, took on new life as thisncontinent was settled by small household groups thatnconstituted virtually independent republics.nThe social history of America, as it has been written bynprofessional historians, has concentrated far too much onnthe East, particularly the Northeast. In fact it has been thenunsettled and half-settied areas of the frontier, the backcountry,nand the backwaters of Middle America that havendetermined the national character. And this story — like sonmuch social history — has been better told in fiction andnmemoirs than in monographs and dissertations. To get anflavor of what life was like for the free American families,nyou can turn to writers like Ole Rolvaag and Willa Cather,nnnOCTOBER 1990/13n