Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton

Made with NoteTab

August 11, 2005


Manuel Miranda
Is NARAL's attack on John Roberts about abortion rights or abortion profits?

Roe v. Wade is not just the source of a right; it's a business license for abortion clinics. This comes best into focus when we consider that in the next term the Supreme Court is likely to hear cases involving not the right to abortion but laws regulating parental consent and notice of abortions for minor girls. These are laws that, according to a Los Angeles Times poll, over 80% of Americans support.

In September 2002, when Democrats first blocked Justice Priscilla Owen from a circuit court nomination over a Texas Supreme Court ruling that upheld a parental notice law, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah put it this way:

I fear the opposition to Justice Owen from the abortion lobby is not at all about abortion rights, because abortion rights are not affected by a mere notice statute. The opposition to Justice Owen is not really about abortion rights, it is about abortion profits. Simply put, the abortion industry is opposed to parental notice laws because parental notice laws place a hurdle between them and the profits from the abortion clients--not the girls who come to them but the adult men who pay for these abortions. These adult men, whose average age rises the younger the girl is, are eager not to be disclosed to parents, sometimes living down the street. . . . At nearly one million abortions per year, the abortion industry is as big as any corporate interest that lobbies in Washington. They not only ignore the rights of parents, they also protect sexual offenders and statutory rapists.

Don Feder
John Roberts - W's Souter

In reality, Roberts' contribution to the case was crucial. He worked in the Reagan Justice Department, clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist and argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Thus, he was perfectly positioned to provide insights into the thinking of conservative justices - how to counter the objections they'd likely raise to the anti-Amendment 2 position.

If Smith had gone to one of the many liberal lawyers at Hogan & Hartson and asked them to help Operation Rescue with a challenge to Roe v. Wade, or to assist the NRA in trying to overturn the assault weapons ban - what do you think the response would have been?

But for Roberts - a solid conservative and a strict constructionist, the administration's conservative cheerleaders assure us -assisting the homosexual lobby to establish a lethal precedent raised "no serious concern."

Romer isn't Roberts' only pandering to political correctness. He spent over 200 hours representing DC welfare queens who saw their free-lunch counter shut down during a budget crisis.

He also helped a Florida mass murderer (who gunned down eight people in two drug-related shootings) in his attempts to have his death sentence vacated on the grounds of temporary insanity (which certain conservative leaders may be pleading after Roberts has been on the Court for a few years)....

It makes you wonder what other issues - besides gay rights - Roberts does not hold "doctrinaire views" (i.e., is morally flexible) on: abortion, religious expression in the public square or applying European standards to American justice?

I don't know if John Roberts supports gay rights or welfare rights or the rights of mass murderers. But neither do his conservative defenders. And neither does George Bush.

David Limbaugh
Faith vs. the Constitution: A False Conflict

The Left's fears over Roberts' Catholic faith...proceed not from their reverence for the Constitution, but chiefly from their violent objection to a particular article of the Catholic faith: that abortion is an egregious sin.

If they believed Roberts were a pro-abortionist, they wouldn't demand his allegiance to the Constitution, as written, because Roe v. Wade's judicial sanctioning of abortion would not have been possible by a Court remotely deferential to the Constitution. Indeed, the Left's loyalty isn't to the Constitution, but to certain policies that have been grafted into it by liberal activist judges who, in the process, have exhibited an abiding disrespect for the document.

If everyone shared the strict constructionists' judicial philosophy, concerns over how a judge's faith might influence his decisions would be moot, because strict constructionists don't make policy.

To demonstrate how this would play out in practice, strict constructionists, irrespective of their personal views on abortion, would conclude there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion and that the legality of abortion should be left to the states. Thus, strict constructionist Supreme Court justices, being effectively neutral on the policy of abortion, would not – on the basis of a mythical constitutional privacy right – vote to invalidate state laws that either legalized or outlawed abortion.

But it is axiomatic that those who don't play by the rules are always suspicious that the other side won't either. Since liberals have routinely exploited the judiciary to implement their policy agenda, they fear conservative-oriented judges might do the same. Actually, they're horrified at the prospect that conservative judges might simply reverse precedent established through liberal activism, such as Roe.

Patrick Hynes
Democrat Disbelief

Despite exit polls showing a plurality of voters said "moral values" was their number one issue of concern on Election Day, liberals, libertarians, and even neocons managed to cover their ears and chant "there's no such thing as a 'moral values' voter" long enough to convince themselves they were right.

It got worse. When her estranged husband and Florida state courts decided it was time for Terri Schiavo to go, Christian conservatives and some Republican politicians protested. Loudly. Congress passed a measure to grant the Supreme Court review of her case. President Bush signed it. All involved were accused of placating the Religious Right. Republicans left, right, and center were accused of being "theocrats." All the polls said people had turned on the Religious Right. The "moral values" movement was as dead as that poor girl in Florida. It all ended badly for Christian conservatives (and not at all well for Ms. Schiavo).

It soon became so gauche to be a "moral values" American, Howard Dean called Republicans a "white, Christian party." And he meant it as an epithet.

Except that someone forgot to tell Americans.

Posted by Danny Carlton at August 11, 2005 09:49 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.