Posted on 01/16/2003 7:01:06 PM PST by KQQL
WASHINGTON (AP) - The head of a prominent abortion rights organization on Thursday predicted a Senate filibuster if President Bush seeks to fill a future Supreme Court vacancy with a nominee who does not clearly support the court's 1973 ruling on the issue. "The burden of proof is on any nominee," said Kate Michelman, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "It's the burden of that nominee to address constitutional freedoms and whether they indeed believe the court was right in recognizing a woman's right to choose."
"I fully expect that pro-choice senators will conduct a filibuster against any Supreme Court nominee" that does not express support for abortion rights, she added in an interview.
The White House declined comment on Michelman's remarks.
A spokesman for Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said the South Dakota lawmaker "feels it's vital that all judicial nominees be willing to faithfully respect the Constitution. That said, he will make a judgment on each individual case as it is presented to him."
Michelman made her comments several days before the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that guaranteed women the right to an abortion. Supporters of the opinion, as well as groups that hope to have it overturned in a future ruling, have scheduled a series of events to mark the date.
Groups opposed to abortion will hold their annual march in Washington on Jan. 22, the anniversary of the ruling, ending at the Supreme Court building. In addition, the GOP-controlled Congress is expected to vote in the coming months on legislation to ban one type of abortions, typically performed late in a woman's pregnancy.
Congress has twice passed legislation covering the procedure, in which the fetus is partially delivered before its skull is punctured, but former President Clinton vetoed it both times. Bush has said he would sign it.
NARAL will hold a fund-raising dinner on Tuesday night, and all six announced Democratic presidential contenders are expected to speak. In addition, the group will start a political campaign next week to seek passage of abortion rights legislation in Congress.
With Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, prospects for passage of such legislation are dim. Additionally, NARAL backed several Democratic Senate candidates who lost to GOP contenders last November. Thus supporters of abortion rights are likely to find themselves trying to fend off attempts by opponents and the Bush administration to curtail the ability of women to end their pregnancies.
Those struggles are likely to include judicial confirmation battles in the Senate, particularly if there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court.
Retirements are rarely announced in advance. But speculation, never in short supply, has increased since last fall's elections, when Republicans gained control of the Senate.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, for example, is 78, and missed December arguments at the court because of leg surgery. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a moderate conservative, is 72. She and the chief justice were both appointed by Republican presidents.
His name is Alberto Gonzales. Among those who discuss such matters regularly, Gonzales and Souter are known as "stealth" candidates. They sort of sneak in under the radar. Gonzales is current White House counsel but when Dubya was governor of Texas, Gonzales was Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court.
The reason he's a "stealth" candidate is that he was the author of a Texas Supreme Court decision that appears to the untrained eye to be a bold pro-choice landmark opinion. But Gonzales was simply interpreting current law as it's written, without addressing its constitutionality.
Authorities will enforce an abortion ban in the same manner they enforce bans on underage drinking, illegal drug use, drunk driving, etc. There are quite a few people who will drive home from the bar tonight while intoxicated. It is Friday night after all. Not all of them will be pulled over by the police. But some will, and they'll go to jail, and there isn't anything unconstitutional about it.
And let me assure you that there are millions of little teeny boppers out there getting drunk and getting stoned, listening to some really bad music cranked up loud. Not all of the little parties will be raided by the police tonight. But some will, and the little teeny boppers at those little parties will go to jail. Once again, there isn't anything unconstitutional about it.
This is not selective enforcement. This is accepting the things you can't change, taking action to change the things you can, and having the wisdom to know the difference.
I believe O'Connor has had breast cancer.
NARAL Goes 1-for-20 in Election
In spite of nationwide victories for pro-life candidates, National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) President Kate Michelman issued a statement November 6 that "it would be a serious mistake for politicians to read yesterday's results as a mandate to insert themselves in women's personal choices."
Michelman is in denial. Earlier this year,
NARAL picked its 20 "key" House and Senate races. In each, it supported its candidate (all of whom were Democrats) with cash and endorsements. Only one "key" NARAL candidate-Sen. Tom Harkin (D.-Iowa)-won. Ironically, that was over a pro-abortion Republican, outgoing Rep. Greg Ganske.NARAL likely would have gone 1-for-21, but it did not change its web page to endorse Walter Mondale (D.) for Senate in Minnesota after the death of Paul Wellstone.
Here are NARAL's 20 "key" races, its endorsements and pre-election commentary. The source: NARAL's web site, www.naral.org.
State/District |
NARAL Candidate |
Opponent |
NARAL Comments |
Outcome |
Ga. Senate |
Max Cleland (D) |
Saxby Chambliss (R) |
"Cleland is rated 100% pro-choice by NARAL." |
Chambliss, 53%-46% |
Ga. 11 |
Roger Kahn (D) |
Phil Gingrey (R) |
". . .anti-choice State Senator Phil Gingrey. . ." |
Gingrey, 52%-48% |
Colo. Senate |
Tom Strickland (D) |
Wayne Allard (R) |
"Strickland has made his pro-choice stand an important centerpiece of his campaign." |
Allard, 51%-46% |
Colo. 04 |
Stan Matsunaka (D) |
Marilyn Musgrave (R) |
"Matsunaka plans to make choice a key issue in the race." |
Musgrave, 55%-42% |
Colo. 07 |
Mike Feeley (D) |
Bob Beauprez (R) |
"Beauprez. . . supports a ban on abortion even in cases of rape or incest." |
Beauprez, 47%-47% |
Ia. Senate |
Tom Harkin (D) |
Greg Ganske (R) |
Harkin is a "true leader on choice" |
Harkin, 54%-44% |
Mich. 09 |
David Fink (D) |
Joe Knollenberg (R) |
"David Fink is running [against] anti-choice U.S. Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R)." |
Knollenberg, 58%-40% |
Mich. 10 |
Carl Marlinga (D) |
Candice Miller (R) |
"Choice will be a defining issue between these candidates." |
Miller, 63%-36% |
Mo. Senate |
Jean Carnahan (D) |
Jim Talent (R) |
"Anti-choice . . . will challenge Carnahan. . ." |
Talent, 50%-49% |
N.H. |
Jean Shaheen (D) |
John Sununu (R) |
"Governor Shaheen [is] a former NARAL-NH volunteer." |
Sununu, 51%-47% |
N.H. 01 |
Martha Fuller Clark (D) |
Jeb Bradley (R) |
"[Clark] is a true pro-choice leader in the New Hampshire House." |
Bradley, 58%-39% |
N.J. 05 |
Anne Sumers (D) |
Scott Garrett (R) |
"Pro-choice Anne Sumers . . .will contrast with Garrett's socially conservative record." |
Garrett, 60%-38% |
N.J. 07 |
Tim Carden (D) |
Mike Ferguson (R) |
"Pro-choice . . . Tim Carden is challenging anti-choice U.S. Rep. Mike Ferguson." |
Ferguson, 58%-41% |
N.C. Senate |
Erskine Bowles (D) |
Elizabeth Dole (R) |
"Dole's position . . .strongly opposes abortion except in cases of rape, incest and life endangerment." |
Dole,54%-45% |
Ore. Senate |
Bill Bradbury (D) |
Gordon Smith (R) |
"Smith's staunch opposition to abortion rights is out of step with pro-choice Oregonians." |
Smith, 56%-40% |
Pa. 06 |
Dan Wofford (D) |
Jim Gerlach (R) |
". . .a 'bellwether' district. . ." |
Gerlach, 51%-49% |
Pa. 15 |
Ed O'Brien (D) |
Pat Toomey (R) |
"Congressional Democrats are so excited about O'Brien . . . " |
Toomey, 57%-43% |
Tex. Senate |
Ron Kirk (D) |
John Cornyn (R) |
"Pro-choice Texans are galvanized behind Ron Kirk." |
Cornyn, 55%-43% |
Tex. 05 |
Ron Chapman (D) |
Jeb Hensarling (R) |
"Anti-choice Jeb Hensarling (R), a former aide to anti-choice U.S. Senator Phil Gramm. . ." |
Hensarling, 58%-40% |
S.C. Senate |
Alex Sanders (D) |
Lindsey Graham (R) |
"Sanders is a former judge with a solid pro-choice record." |
Graham, 54%-44% |
Are unborn children human beings? Are they persons? No doubt about it. The following essays argue the pro-life case...
Some abortion advocates are willing to concede that unborn children are human beings. Surprisingly enough, they claim that they would still be able to justify abortion. According to their argument, no person-no unborn child-has a right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling host. Unborn children may have a right to life, but that right to life ends where it encroaches upon a mother's right to bodily autonomy. The argument is called the bodyright argument, and it is refuted in the following essays...
Why would it be wrong to kill an adult? Why would it be wrong to kill a baby after it has been born? Questions like these seems trivial, but their answers are extremely important to the abortion debate. What many people fail to realize is that most of the arguments used to justify killing unborn children could be used with just as much force to justify killing newborn children and, in some cases, even full-grown adults. The wrongness of killing is discussed in the following essays...
Abortion as "Shedding Innocent Blood" & Lessons Toward Repentance ... The "Equal Creation" principles in the Declaration of Independence were the cry of the anti-slavery crusade for 30 years. Today most evangelical leaders and many presidential candidates reference the same document and the Creator's "endowment of unalienable rights" in the fight against big government and abortion rights. What they fail to mention is that this document is also an instrument of judgment. They overlook its "execution" provisions. In its first paragraph, the very existence of the nation is pinned to the "laws of nature and nature's God." For Jefferson's contemporaries, this phrase meant the Romans 2:15 law written on every man's heart, whether Christian or not, as tested by the Christian Bible. Abortion is the shedding of innocent blood. The blood of an unborn child is separate from that of its mother at 21days gestation and is a person from conception (Luke 1:42-43). As you know, killing such a child violates God's laws in the Decalogue (Exodus 20:13). God hates such killing (Proverbs 6:16-17) and it defiles the land (Numbers35:33). God is personally pledged to avenge the shedding of innocent blood (Deuteronomy 32:43). |
Janet Folger launches Faith2Action with national poll, ad campaign
Faith 2 Actionreleased on Jan. 15 an eye-opening national poll, conducted by well-respected Wirthlin International, that shows the pro-life movement is the strongest it has ever been! The American public was asked: "Would you favor judicial nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court who would uphold laws that restore legal protection for unborn children?" The result? An astounding 66 percent -- a full two thirds -- said YES!
Even more than that, seven out of 10 surveyed said they to restore legal protection to protect unborn children. With the American people behind us, now is the time to start winning the cultural war by working TOGETHER with the most effective organizations on the side of faith and family now linked together in one place: faith2action.org.
One filibuster, and we de-fund Planned Parenthood. And with each filibuster, we de-fund another left-wing organization.
Deal?
But the examples you give are all victimless crimes, unless the drunk behind the wheel doesn't manage to make it home safely -- but even in that case he'd be charged with vehicular homicide in addition to drunk driving.
Looking at the invective here, it strikes me that the goal is to have abortion treated exactly like murder (referring to doctors as serial killers, etc), since it snuffs out an innocent human life. And there's no statute of limitations for murder.
What you're proposing is not a "serious" enforcement of an abortion ban, as I put it in my posts. It's lackadasical enforcement, and that's not going to be good enough for some of the more vocal participants in this debate.
[Here's a hint on changing the direction of society, without resorting to violent intervention : writers have traditionally manipulated the psyche of peoples when issues of grave import arise and appear to have little coherence toward doing the right thing.]
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.