Posted on 03/05/2009 8:00:24 AM PST by techno
Yesterday Governor Sarah Palin chose a woman for the Supreme Court of Alaska who once sat on Planned Parenthood in Alaska and was opposed by social conservatives in Alaska. The other choice was a man who had a history of being a strong environmental activist who many conservatives were not happy with either.
NB:in 2010 the Alaskan people will have their say and can accept her or reject her at that time.
In Alaska the Judicial Council considers 6 candidates and then narrows it down to 2. These two are then submitted to the Governor where one has to be chosen. The Governor is not permitted any other choices. (Governor Murkowski tried to throw it back to the Judicial Council and he was rebuffed.)
Now the question observers ask did Sarah Palin betray the pro-life movement in choosing a candidate that has pro-choice views, by performing a task in which she had virtually no choice or did she have a choice and should she have stood on principle (pro-life) and thrown it back to the Alaskan Judicial Council in defiance knowing that it would most likely be thrown back to her with an attendant controversy and furor that would have caused battle lines to be drawn in Alaska, permanent rifts to arise, and gridlock to occur in the legislature or between the legislature and the Governor?
Frankly, I am pro-life. I don't know the answer. Is Sarah Palin an expedient politician, a target of circumstances, or a villain?
It is correct that both judges were non-conservative, Smith being very liberal, however I wouldn't rule out that the PP claim isn't entirely true. I would like to see further proof for this, since there is no official source evident for this claim.
National right to life doesn’t even have Christen on their radar as someone to oppose.
http://search.nrlc.org/cgi-bin/ts.pl?index=429948&query=Christen&SEARCH=Search&opt=ANY
I have a sneaky feeling that someone is floating this to plant a seed against Palin in the future..
Did you really expect us all to run arounf like our hair was on fire from your posting this article?
Planned Parenthood also doesn’t have anything on Christen
http://search.plannedparenthood.org/search?q=Christen&Image1.x=22&Image1.y=5&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&output=xml_no_dtd&oe=UTF-8&ie=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&proxyreload=1&site=default_collection&proxyreload=1
Interesting considering the source claims she was on their board. I call shenanigans.
Pick the one that sucks least, and then do the best you can to get that system fixed as soon as possible. That’s horrible.
Note that a previous justice appointed by Palin, who is pro-life, made it able to push the parental consent bill now.
It's clear that she favors pro-life judges, when possible.
What is her judicial philosophy?
That is much more relevant than her peronal views.
Again I am a Sarah Palin supporter and not a troll. Would you rather sweep this issue under the rug so some scumbag can bring it up later on the campaign to discredit Sarah or drive a wedge between Sarah and her supporters or should it at least be dealt with head on and admit ‘it is what it is’?
In the end I'm 100% convinced she came down on the side of what's best for Alaska. I trust her and she's yet to challenge my trust. JMO.
So Techno, based on what was found on this thread, where do you get that she was on the board of Planned Parenthood in Alaska?
Smells a lot like the BS about Palin being a Buchananite and Alaska Indepedence Party member.
If you got the info that she was on Planned Parenthood’s board from another source, then you aren’t planting the seed. Why take it personal?
Good post. My thoughts to the T.
Keep reading, there is way more to this story...
From www.conservatives4palin.com
But read the important part (from ADN):
Christen's application included her membership in several charitable groups, including some from her past, but did not mention that she was on the board of Planned Parenthood in the mid-1990s. The organization, which didn't provide abortions in Alaska until 2003, is now on the opposite side of a Palin-supported bill to require girls under 17 to get parental consent for an abortion.
So even IF she was on PP, which remains to be proven, she wasn't neccesairly pro-choice.
See my post #37.
There always is. I was agreeing with your post, not the OP’s btw...
Good job. There is usually more to a story than meets the eye.
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.