Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortion Advocates vs. the ABA on Priscilla Owen
CWA library ^ | July 11, 2002 | Thomas Jipping

Posted on 09/18/2002 7:37:13 PM PDT by Freemeorkillme

Abortion Advocates vs. the ABA on Priscilla Owen By Thomas Jipping July 16, 2002

To: Interested Parties From: Thomas L. Jipping, J.D. Senior Fellow in Legal Studies

Re: Abortion Advocates vs. the ABA on Justice Priscilla Owen Date: July 11, 2002

On May 9, 2001, President Bush nominated Priscilla Owen, currently on the Texas Supreme Court, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Abortion advocates are among her most staunch opponents and harshest critics. The endorsement by one of America’s most prominent liberal, pro-abortion organizations, however, exposes the political, extremist nature of the opposition.

Opposition to Justice Owen is based entirely on her votes in a series of cases involving a state law requiring parental notification before minor girls may obtain an abortion. The report by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), for example, looks only at those parental notification cases and condemns Justice Owen for “a shocking lack of sympathy” and “a lack of compassion” as well as “extreme bias.”

The American Bar Association also evaluated Justice Owen’s nomination and unanimously gave her its highest “well qualified” rating. This is significant for four reasons.

First, the ABA evaluates a nominee’s entire record, rather than tabulating the results in a few cases. The ABA examines the nominee’s answers to questionnaires as well as her legal writing and conducts extensive interviews with judges, lawyers, law school professors, and community leaders.1

Second, the ABA has been an abortion advocate for 30 years. It endorsed the Uniform Abortion Act in 1972, the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972 and 1974, and public funding of abortion in 1978. In 1990, the ABA’s House of Delegates voted 285-106 for a resolution opposing any requirement of parental notification for abortion. This is precisely the issue on which critics attack Justice Owen.

Third, the ABA’s published criteria for rating judicial nominees include “the nominee’s compassion…open-mindedness…freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice under the law.”2

Fourth, the ABA claims it “does not consider a nominee’s…ideology.”3

Senate Democrats have said that the ABA’s rating is the “gold standard” for evaluating judicial nominees. The ABA, despite its three decades of abortion advocacy, conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Justice Owen, did not consider ideology, and concluded that she is compassionate, open-minded, free from bias, and committed to equal justice. The NAF could claim Justice Owen lacks compassion and is biased, then, only after an ideology-based cursory evaluation. Whom do you believe?

1. American Bar Association, The ABA Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary: What It Is and How It Works, available at http://www.abanet.org/scfedjud/backgrounder.html (visited July 11, 2002), at 5-6.

2. Id. at 4-5.

3. Id. at 2.

Printable Version

E-mail a friend about this article

Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 E-mail: mail@cwfa.org


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: compassionate; conservatives
yours is to comment
1 posted on 09/18/2002 7:37:14 PM PDT by Freemeorkillme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Coleus
PING
2 posted on 09/18/2002 8:01:06 PM PDT by Freemeorkillme
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freemeorkillme
Dear President Bush,
With the Surpeme Court session getting ready to close, it may well be time for perhaps the most important domestic decision of your presidency: the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice(s). The main reason why I supported you in 2000 and why I wanted Daschle out of power in 02 (and 04) has to do with the courts. I want America courts to interpret law, not write law. During your presidential campaign you said Thomas and Scalia were your two model justices. Those are excellent models. The High Court needs more like them. Clarence Thomas recently said to students that the tough cases were when what he wanted to do was different from what the law said. And he goes by the law. This should be a model philosophy for our justices. Your father, President Bush lost his reelection campaign for 3 main reasosn, as far as I can see. 1. he broke the no new taxes pledge 2. David Souter 3. Clinton convinced people we were in a Bush recession (which we had already come out of by the time Clinton was getting sworn in)

I urge you to learn from all three of these: 1. on taxes, you're doing great. Awesome job on the tax cut. 2. good job so far on judicial appointments. I want to see more of a fight for Estrada, Owen, and Pickering, but I commend you on your nominations. 3. by staying engaged in the economic debate you'll serve yourself well

I have been thoroughly impressed with your handling of al Queida, Iraq, and terrorism. You have inspired confidence and have shown great leadership.

But I want to remind you that your Supreme Court pick(s) will be with us LONG after you have departed office. I urge you to avoid the tempation to find a "compromise" pick. Go for a Scalia or Thomas. Don't go for an O'Connor or Kennedy. To be specific, get someone who is pro-life. Roe v Wade is one of the worst court decisions I know of, and it's the perfect example of unrestrained judicial power.

I know the temptation will be tremendous on you to nominate a moderate. But remember who your true supporters are. I am not a important leader or politician. I am "simply" a citizen who has been an enthusiatic supporter of you. I am willing to accept compromise in many areas of government but I will watch your Court nomiantions extremely closely. What the Senate Dems are doing right now is disgusting, but as the President you have the bully pulpit to stop it. Democrats will back down if you turn up serious heat on them.

Moreover, I think public opinion is shifting towards the pro-life position. Dems will want you to nominate a moderate, but almost all will vote against you anyways. Pro-choice Repubs will likely still vote for you if you nominate a Scalia, after all, you campaigned on it. So Mr. President, I urge you to stick with your campaign statements and nominate justices who believe in judicial restraint, like Scalia and Thomas.

Happy Memorial Day and may God bless you and your family.
3 posted on 05/29/2003 7:46:26 PM PDT by votelife (FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson