She argued that the ABA should be *neutral*, which does not mean she is a pro-life activist. American Life League, the most solid pro-life organization which is peaceful and rational, opposes Miers, which suggests she has not donated to or been involved with them. Feminists for Life is also unsure what to think of her. Justice Hecht said she is *PERSONALLY pro-life*, a stance she shares with Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and most pro-abortion activists.
What more have I done that is pro-life? I have worked at Crisis Pregnancy Centers to give women other options, I have prayed every Saturday outside an abortion mill since I was 16, written countless pro-life papers for liberal professors of ethics and philosophy, did graduate work at Harvard to increase my opportunities to effect our culture and laws, and worked on the campaigns of pro-life politicians. Harriet Miers may feel as strongly as I do, and I most certainly don't look down my nose at her or at anyone else (arrogance is not pro-life), but I have no way of knowing that.
You mention that "rational" people do nothing besides contribute money. I guess people that helped Jews, Slavs, and Catholics escape the Holocaust were irrational.
I fail to see how a pro-lifer or a conservative could oppose the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The decision removed the abortion issue from the democratic process, a classic example of centralized government. Before Roe, there were several hundred US abortions per year, now there are approximately 1.3 million. People have more abortions since it has been recognized as a "Constitutional right," because many Americans conflate law and morality.
If we cannot legislate upon moral issues such as the right to exist, I hope you have joined an advocacy group to "decriminalize" rape and homicide. If "people want to make that horrible, wicked decision," "it is their God-given right." There is no use in making such acts of violence illegal, I suppose.
I admire your anti-terrorism work, but wouldn't you say (according to your own principles) Al-Qaeda has a God-given right to decide to kill innocent civilians? If killing is immoral but we have free will, isn't anti-terrorism law a legislation of morality?
As for Roe v. Wade's precedent, the late Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas have consistently dissented from decisions upholding the case's precedent. While Rehnquist was alive, he believed Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned. Scalia and Thomas continue to express this sentiment.
And the ABA being neutral is consistant with the Constitution. She has proven she's pro-life beyond rational argument as evidenced by her personal and professional actions witnessed by many others. Neutrality on abortion is how many things should be. Because if this country becomes strongly opposed to things in nature that Christianity is opposed to, that means someday it could be opposed to Christianity itself, and that is not a precedent that I would want set. She was arguing that it was not appropriate for the ABA to have taken a stand in favor of abortion. Arguing they should be actively opposed to abortion would have been as morally wrong and dangerous as it is for them to be against it. If an entity can be made to be against what you are against, it can also be made to be for what you are against. Where do you go from there?