Posted on 02/01/2017 5:45:40 PM PST by Morgana
The Planned Parenthood abortion business was quick to announce its opposition to President Donald Trumps Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch.
Trump nominated the federal appeals Court Judge yesterday with strong support from pro-life organizations that point to his track record as supporting religious freedom for pro-life organizations refusing to be forced to pay for abortions. They also noted his opposition to assisted suicide and his support for a state fighting to defund Planned Parenthood abortion business.
Now the nations largest abortion corporation is launching a massive campaign to stop Gorsuchs nomination. The pro-abortion group says he should not be confirmed because he would be a vote to overturn Roe versus Wade, the Supreme Court decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortion throughout pregnancy.
The next Supreme Court justice will rule on cases that strike at the very heart of who we are as a country including challenges to Roe v. Wade that could strip women of the right to safe and legal abortion, Planned Parenthood said in a message to its supporters online. Donald Trumps Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, has a history of interfering with reproductive rights and health, including access to birth control. The Senate must confront Gorsuch on this alarming record, and demand that he clearly and directly affirm his support for Roe v. Wade. And if he wont, keep him off the Supreme Court no matter what it takes. Its simple: No Roe, No Go.
SIGN THE PETITION! Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch
The abortion giant also slammed Gorsuch for supporting Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor in their bids to not be forced to pay for abortion-causing drugs in their employee health care plans.
Gorsuch has also worked to undermine access to essential health care ruling that bosses should be able to deny women birth control coverage. His record shows a disturbing willingness to let ideology overrule his constitutional duty to uphold and respect clearly established precedent protecting our fundamental liberties, including Roe v. Wade and Whole Womans Health, Planned Parenthood said.
The 49-year-old Judge Gorsuch, if confirmed, would replace pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia who supporting overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing states to once again provide legal protection for unborn children.
Justice Gorsuch is currently a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which includes the districts of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, as well as the Eastern, Northern and Western districts of Oklahoma. He has served as a federal judge since August 2006 and was appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the Senate.
The pro-life legal scholars who know him best say he is a strong originalist, believing that the Constitution should only be interpreted as the Founding Fathers intended. That would him squarely in the legal camp of Justice Scalia.
One of the biggest problems pro-life advocates have with the Supreme Court is that it invented a so-called right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. But Gorsuchs writings indicate he opposes that kind of thinking. In a 2005 National Review article, Gorsuch wrote that liberals rely on the courts too much to made social policy.
This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, theres little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programsreal-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produceare not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.
He said liberal activists rely on the judicial system as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.
On direct pro-life matters, Gorsuch sided with the state of Utah in its attempt to defund the Planned Parenthood abortion business.
Gorsuch sided with pro-life Utah Governor Gary Herberts effort to defund Planned Parenthood. After his decision, the 10th Circuit Court decided against re-hearing Planned Parenthood v. Gary Herbert, after the court previously ordered Utah to fund Planned Parenthood. Gorsch dissented in the case and wrote:
Respectfully, this case warrants rehearing. As it stands, the panel opinion leaves litigants in preliminary injunction disputes reason to worry that this court will sometimes deny deference to district court factual findings; relax the burden of proof by favoring attenuated causal claims our precedent disfavors; and invoke arguments for reversal untested by the parties, unsupported by the record, and inconsistent with principles of comity. Preliminary injunction disputes like this one recur regularly and ensuring certainty in the rules governing them, and demonstrating that we will apply those rules consistently to all matters that come before us, is of exceptional importance to the law, litigants, lower courts, and future panels alike. I respectfully dissent.
As National Review pro-life legal scholar Ed Whelan notes:
Id like to take note of his remarkable failure to acknowledge, much less credit Gorsuch for, Gorsuchs powerful dissent (see pp. 16-27 here) one month ago from the Tenth Circuits denial of rehearing en banc in Planned Parenthood Association of Utah v. Herbert. As the faithful reader will recall from these posts of mine, in the aftermath of the Center for Medical Progresss release of videos depicting various Planned Parenthood affiliates ugly involvement in harvesting body parts, Utah governor Gary Herbert directed state agencies to cease acting as an intermediary for pass-through federal funds to Planned Parenthoods Utah affiliate. But after the district court denied Planned Parenthoods request for a preliminary injunction against Herberts directive, a divided panel, on very weak reasoning, ruled that Planned Parenthood was entitled to a preliminary injunction. Gorsuchs dissent dismantles the panel majoritys reasoning.
Would a Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch be inclined to overturn the decades-old decision fostering abortion on demand? His record suggests he is open to doing so.
As one pro-life legal scholar notes:
In the panel ruling in Games-Perez, Gorsuch did indeed regard himself as bound to abide by controlling circuit precedent, just as nearly every circuit judge not named Stephen Reinhardt also does. But Gorsuch didnt stop there. In a 20-page opinion, he urged the en banc Tenth Circuit to reconsider and overrule the wrong precedent.
Gorsuch also has made pro-life comments about abortion and strongly opposes assisted suicide. He has written a book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, which (as Princeton University Press puts it) builds a nuanced, novel, and powerful moral and legal argument against legalization [of assisted suicide and euthanasia], one based on a principle that, surprisingly, has largely been overlooked in the debatethe idea that human life is intrinsically valuable and that intentional killing is always wrong.
Meanwhile, as National Review reports, Gorsuch wrote a powerful dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in a case involving funding of Planned Parenthood. NR indicates Gorsuch has written human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.
Democrats have already promised to filibuster any Supreme Court nominee.
Sen. Jeff Merkle, a pro-abortion Oregon Democrat, said in an interview on Monday morning that he will filibuster any pick other than pro-abortion Judge Merrick garland who pro-abortion president Barack Obama named to replace pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia.
This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat, Merkley said in an interview. We will use every lever in our power to stop this.
Gorsuch is 49 years old. He and his wife, Louise, have two daughters and live in Boulder, Colorado.
Dare I say, MORE WINNING?
Ah,if only he would.
And a look more besides, live Helvering v Davis.
Pray hard
NOT Fake News.
They are OBSESSED with sex——either abortion or birth control is always being discussed.
Even the Women’s March focused on it.
.
This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat, Merkley said in an interview. We will use every lever in our power to stop this.
Yep. Sure. Whatever. We ordered the murder of Judge Scallia, JUST so we could continue with our nefarious plans.
*Rolleyes*
We're counting on it.
PP hasn’t filed for bankruptcy (the financial kind) yet?
OMG....standing up for lives!!!!! How ‘extreme’!!!
I would hope so, if he ever had the chance. I read the history of Roe v.Wade, I was frankly shocked at how it came into being, so thoughtless an act with such huge and horrible consequences.
Souter and the ‘Rats stole Souters’ seat, but made it wider.
Do you happen to have an unbiased source for researching the history of RvW? TIA.
Oh dear, Oh dear. How will Planned Parenthood make money without millions of babies to kill?
Ginsburg is 84 this year. Appointed by Clinton
Kennedy is 81 this year. Appointed by Reagan
Breyer is 79 this year. Appointed by Clinton
Thomas is 69 this year. Appointed by Bush 41
Trump, in his first term, will appoint one, and possibly two in his first term.
If he chooses to run and wins he could appoint two more.
Replacing Ginsburg, Breyer and Kennedy would be huge.
The court could swing 7-2 conservative. Just imagine.
Abortion is safe as long as Kennedy is there and Ginsburg doesn’t tip over dead.
They know that when Ginsburg dies and the court turns 5-3-1, is when Roe is probably overturned.
Roberts is not a Conservative.
Even if Roe vs. Wade is reversed, all that would do is make it an issue for the individual states to decide.
I hate to say it, but the Court didn’t overturn Row v Wade when Scalia was still alive... so how is Gorsuch suppose to do it. It is going to take at least one more Supreme Court appointment to overturn Row v Wade. But Gorsuch has all the right enemies and it proves once again that Trump is trying harder to keeping his promises than any elected official in recent memory.
I would add that I wouldn’t want to stand near Ginsburg in a lightning storm.
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.