Posted on 02/24/2009 3:52:55 PM PST by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- With his appointment of Dawn Johnsen, a former NARAL attorney, as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of the Legal Counsel, pro-life advocates already know they are getting an abortion advocate in the position. But, Johnsen goes further and views pregnancy as slavery.
Johnsen is a professor at the Indiana University School of Law, but she is also a longtime abortion advocate and worked for one of the leading abortion advocacy groups.
Johnsen was the Legal Director for NARAL from 1988-1993.
In an article at National Review, Andrew McCarthy describes the importance of the Office of Legal Counsel.
"OLC, a critically important agency, is the administration’s lawyers’ lawyer," he says. "It authoritatively interprets the law for the attorney general and, in doing so, drives administration legal policy."
"OLC’s credibility is derived from its reputation for apolitical, academic discipline — its commitment to informing policymakers of what the law is, rather than what staffers believe the law should be. Johnsen is, for that reason, a poor fit: She is an ideologue, and an unabashed one," he explains.
McCarthy says that Johnsen's view of pregnancy as slavery wasn't just an off-the-cuff remark.
"It was her considered position in a 1989 brief filed in the Supreme Court," he explains, and the legal papers she filed concerned a Missouri law banning taxpayer funding of abortions.
In the papers, Johnsen said that any restriction that makes abortion less accessible is, in her view, tantamount to “involuntary servitude” because it “requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest [in the life of the unborn].”
In effect, a woman “is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends.” Such “forced pregnancy,” she contends, violates the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits slavery.
"The Court rejected this farcical theory, just as it has rejected other instantiations of Johnsen’s extremism," McCarthy explains in his National Review column.
"In reputable private law offices and U.S. attorney’s offices throughout the country, adult supervision would prevent such a lunatic analogy from finding its way into a letter to a lower-court judge, much less into a Supreme Court brief," he added. "Obama, however, is proposing that Johnsen be the adult supervision at Justice. He would fill a position calling for dispassionate rigor with a crusader for whom strident excess is habitual."
Johnsen goes further and she insisted in her legal papers that, without government-provided abortion counseling, a large number of women would be left without “proper information about contraception.” This, she claimed, would mean they “cannot be said to have a meaningful opportunity to avoid pregnancy.”
McCarthy responds: "The usual rejoinder to such reasoning is that nobody is forcing these women to have sex."
He also explains that, with Johnsen giving the president legal advice, she will surely tell him that any judicial pick -- from Supreme Court on down -- must adhere to a pro-abortion mantra.
"Moreover, as she declaimed in a 2006 op-ed opposing Samuel Alito’s confirmation, opposition to all restrictions on abortion — not just acceptance of Roe v. Wade — should be a litmus test for judicial nominees," McCarthy says.
Johnsen wrote: "The notion of legal restrictions as some kind of reasonable ‘compromise’ — perhaps to help make abortion ‘safe, legal, and rare proves nonsensical.”
Ultimately, McCarthy says he understands the attraction Johnsen has for Obama.
"Johnsen’s attraction for Obama is obvious. The principal target of her Webster brief was the settled principle that the Constitution’s recognition of various fundamental rights (and the judicial invention of such 'rights' as abortion) does not confer an entitlement to governmental aid to exercise those rights," he explains. "For Johnsen, this is anathema, the denial of 'economic justice' and thus of equal protection."
"In Dawn Johnsen’s dizzying jurisprudence, government has no business invading individual privacy and regulating abortion but is obliged to coerce taxpayers into underwriting abortions as a first step in what she unapologetically calls 'the progressive agenda' of 'universal health care,'" McCarthy adds.
Economic justice is a favorite phrase of Obama's and universal health care is one of his prime goals.
ACTION: Contact members of the Senate at http://www.senate.gov and urge strong opposition to Johnsen's appointment.
Women CHOOSE to be pregnant, this IS NOT slavery, but this woman does support the MURDER of 50 MILLION INNOCENT AMERICANS.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Is it me, or does she hate women?
Yep, but not nearly as much as she hates children.
Innocent and guilty mean absolutely nothing to liberal democrats. Responsibility also means nothing to them.
There is no reasoning with these maniacs. The only thing that anyone can do to stop the murder of babies is to give out the true medical information to women considering their options and hope that they still have some humanity left in their souls.
“...Sees Pregnancy as Slavery...”
....and sees satan as God....
“requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus”
Not only is her legal thinking flawed, but she is just plain stupid (and a pig)
FMCDH(BITS)
Only women who choose to give birth.
The “tolerant”, “compassionate leftists seem to hate human beings, period.
Pregnancy as slavery?
That’s OK. I see abortion as homicide, so I guess that makes us even..
God will let us know who is right.
The capability to be pregnant is part of being female. How can you think that slavery is an inherent part of female biology? I don’t see how this could be reconciled with an acceptance of females in general?
So in Johnsen’s “logic”, the baby is the slave owner; so I suppose killing the baby frees the slave. This woman is a dangerous loon.
Women are so lucky. The miracle of containing and nurturing another life within our bodies is supreme, we are so lucky to be given this special ability. Men and women now like to believe they are "equal" but there is Nothing A Man Can Do that equals the marvel of bearing a child and giving birth. It is the ultimate ability that makes us more important to the world than any man alive! And, most fathers agree.
A woman instinctively loves her unborn child as soon as she opens her mind and heart to it’s existence (many women who have an abortion never reach that point). That is why the nurses as Planned Parenthood do not let their patients see the sonogram screen. That is why they don’t point our it’s heartbeat.
Describing pregnancy as slavery is just wrong. There is nothing more fulfilling than nurturing and growing your unborn baby. Nothing.
I want to smack the sh!t out of this nimrod.
Has she turned this razor-sharp logic to the question of what 18 years of child support must then by her reasoning make divorced men?
I didn’t think so.
OH MY! I LOVE YOUR TAGLINE!
Did this idiot’s mother consider it slavery to carry her to term?
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.