Posted on 08/04/2005 6:46:38 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
Pro-choice advocates say documents released this week from the National Archives suggest that federal Judge John G. Roberts Jr. would vote to curtail abortion rights if confirmed to the Supreme Court.
"We are gravely concerned this new information could indicate John Roberts holds a hostile position on the fundamental right to privacy," Karen Pearl, interim president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said after reading a draft article Judge Roberts wrote in 1981 as a lawyer in the Reagan administration. "The draft article attacks the very bedrock of reproductive freedom."
The 1981 draft article about judicial restraint raises deeper concerns for abortion-rights advocates because it questions the validity not of Roe v. Wade -- the 1973 Supreme Court case that established abortion rights -- but of an earlier case that established a "right to privacy" and is the foundation for Roe.
"All of us, for example, may heartily endorse a 'right to privacy,' " Judge Roberts wrote in reference to the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut. "That does not, however, mean that courts should discern such an abstraction in the Constitution, arbitrarily elevate it over other constitutional rights and powers by attaching the label 'fundamental,' and then resort to it as, in the words of one of Justice [Hugo] Black's dissents, 'a loose, flexible, uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional.' "
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Hey, I fear that a more liberal justice will continue the unchecked slaughter of the unborn. Does my side of the issue have any standing or am I just an intolerant jackal.
There is NO right to privacy!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1456856/posts?q=1&&page=550#550
"We are gravely concerned this new information could indicate John Roberts holds a hostile position on the fundamental right to privacy."
Well duh! We conservatives are coming back at you with full force! You've murdered over 45 million innocent lives! We won't allow it anymore!
Let's just hope John Paul Stevens resigns and then we can get another good conservative on the court and really freak the liberals out!
But Ann Coulter said the libs have nothing to worry about... ;)
If the Constitution is a "living breathing document" why can't we consider Roe v. Wade being a "living breathing" decision?
seems like there is more fear of him here
So? Conservatives not only 'fear' but already experienced hostile liberal judges.
Good point!
There must be two of us intolerant jackals then...
Not likely, we've already proven here that he's a pansy and a liberal..or is that redundant.
It isn't necessary to argue against abortion by arguing against a right to privacy. An unborn baby is a separate and distinct individual from the mother. There are no rational arguments against this. What we are really talking about is whether this individual member of the Human Race has a right to live or is no more than personal property until it magically obtains this right by virture of a trip down the birth canal.
"Abortion backers fear ..."
It's about time.
Apparently the Constitution can only inhale, never exhale. (Or maybe it's the other way around.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.