Gonzales Wrong for Attorney General; Why Won't Bush pick a Pro-Life Nominee? American Life League.

What hobbes1 said, and do the same when you figure out Tommy Thompson at HHS.

I agree with you also that abortion is murder and we need to work to change the positive laws. Indeed, even if the fact that abortion is murder is not in a man-made law, it is still a law of nature and natures God. Although I dont agree that cases of self-defense are ever categorized as murder. There is a moral "double effect" there. When you resort to self defense and the attacker gets killed, your intent was not to kill him, it was to defend yourself. Morally and legally, that is not murder.

Yawwwwwwwwwwnnnn...you're preaching to the choir buddy. None of us are for abortion so spare us your sanctimonious preaching not to mention your "shock effect" posts on the horror of abortion. We all are aware of the evil of abortion. I'm just sick of seeing otherwise good people demonized by the right and the left over this issue, especially one like Gonzalez who shows no evidence of being pro-abortion simply because HE INTERPRETED LAW THAT HE WAS NOT ELECTED TO CHANGE OR LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH. The man interpreted laws related to parental consent. He did not make some ruling to uphold abortion laws. So I say to you what I say to liberals. THINK, don't FEEL. When you do that, you will see this is nothing to get all riled about. And what's more, it's nothing to oppose an otherwise qualified man over. And even less, it's nothing to base some rash assumption on that Bush is abandoning his pro-life positions. Sheesh, it's hard sharing an ideology with some of you people.

Any said "loophole" is superceded by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution. Gonzalez had a responsibility to rule accordingly.

Last I checked, it was not the state forcing women to have abortions, but women choosing to do so themselves.

Last i checked, it was not the state forcing people like Scott Peterson to kill his wife and unborn baby, but Scott choosing to do so himself.

How in the WORLD does that fact allow the states the "right" to deprive an innocent unborn child of life?!?

Again, NO state has the right to deprive an innocent person of life without due process of law (and, no, the state doesn't usually do this in "self defence", but rather individual citizens, so the analogy that you used is wrong).

The 5th and 14th Amendments concern people being deprived of life, liberty, or property by the state without due process. They don't outlaw murder...

They don't?!? Tell that to any number of civil rights activists who were murdered. The 5th and 14th amendments certainly DO outlaw the murder of an innocent person. See that's what "no person shall be deprived of life" means--it is WRONG, UNCONSTITUTION, not allowable, not permissable, illegal to deprive someone of life.

...Those topics are covered under common law and state penal codes.

False-disjunct fallacy. It's not EITHER common law, state penal codes, OR the constitution. It's common law, state penal codes, AND the constitution.

Think of it this way, if you're right. then a state can have the right to permit murder, But this is absurd.

But by your interpretation of the constitution, I am violating the constitution every day by destraining my children from enjoying the fullness of their liberty, said subject also being covered by the same due process clause. The same tenuous link of the state allowing me to do that is there.

Wrong. fallacy of equivocation of the term "liberty" re original meaning.

btw, by YOUR interpretation of the Constitution, it is perfectly constitutionally permissable for you to murder your children, so long as you could get the state legislature to write laws allowing it.

Perhaps it is time to go back and read up what Judge Bork said about this issue of substantive due process.

i was just reading his remarks about that in his book "The Temping of America" not tooo long ago.

HE does not believe what YOU believe.

Yep, George W. Bush...hero of pro-choicers everywhere...

From the Planned Parenthood website:

REDUCING ACCESS TO FAMILY PLANNING

Anti-choice governor Tommy Thompson selected as Secretary of Health and Human Services (December 29, 2000).
On his first day in office, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the president restores the Reagan-era global gag rule on international family planning assistance (January 22, 2001).
The president closes the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach (March 29, 2001).
Contraceptive coverage for federal employees striped by the president from his first federal budget (April 9, 2001).
The president floats possibility of nominating John Klink - an ardent opponent of birth control and spokesperson for the Vatican in it's opposition to condom use - to oversee the U.S. Global population program (May 23, 2001).
"Abstinence-only" proponent Patricia Funderburk Ware named the head the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) (November 30, 2001).
House passes the "Child Custody Protection Act," which would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion unless the parental involvement requirements of her home state have been met (April 17, 2002).
U.S. delegation to the U.N. Children's Summit, led by HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, fights sexuality education and opposes condoms for HIV/AIDS prevention (May 2002).
Louise Oliver, former president of the pro-life Harvard Law School's Society for Law, Life, and Religion appointed special assistant to the U.S. State Department Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (July 2002).
The president withholds $34 million in funding for birth control, maternal and child care, and HIV/AIDS prevention from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (July 22, 2002).
House passes abortion ban legislation H.R. 4965 (July 24, 2002).
Announcement made by administration that approximately $900,000 available for financial assistance and applications for embryo "adoption" (July 25, 2002).
The U.S. Department of Justice does an about-face and withdraws support for women's rights treaty, maintaining U.S. as only industrialized nation not to ratify the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (July 26, 2002).
Anti-condom "abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Freda McKissic named to the CDC Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention (September 6, 2002).
House passes the so-called "Abortion Non-Discrimination Act" (ANDA), a sweeping refusal clause that allows any health care entity to discriminate against any provider who provides or even gives information about abortion (September 25, 2002).
U.S. State Department freezes $3 million in funding to the World Health Organization (WHO) in response to anti-choice objections to the WHO's Human Reproduction Program (October 2002).
HHS Web sites remove medically accurate information about condom effectiveness and the lack of a proven link between abortion and breast cancer (October 2002).
HHS Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection Charter gives embryos new status as "human subjects" (October 2002).
"Abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Alma Golden named to oversee Title X, nation's family planning program (October 7, 2002).
Family Planning foe Chris Smith calls on USAID to exclude reproductive health organizations in developing countries from receiving HIV/AIDS funding, thus extending global gag rule (October 24, 2002).
U.S. delegation to U.N. regional meeting reverses U.S. position in support of 1994 global agreement affirming the right of all couples and individuals to determine freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children, and to have the information and means to do so (United Nations, 1994) (November 2, 2002).
Anti-choice and religious extremist doctors opposed to contraception, mifepristone, and reproductive rights appointed to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (December 24, 2002).
The president's FY 2004 budget fails family planning programs and denies women access to abortion services (February 3, 2003).
Politics trumps women's health, Senate passes S.3 abortion ban (March 13, 2003).
Senate and House defeat Department of Defense (DOD) amendments that would have allowed access to abortion for women in the military who use their own funds (May 22, 2003).
Abortion ban, H.R. 760, passes the House of Representatives (June 4, 2003).
State Department denies funds for refugee AIDS prevention (August 1, 2003).
The president extends global gag rule to all international family planning programs (August 29, 2003).
Abortion ban, S.3, is sent to conference with the House of Representatives (September 17, 2003).
Congress passes S.3, dangerous ban on abortion, endangering women's lives for political gain (October 22, 2003).
The president signs abortion ban, the first federal legislation since Roe v. Wade to criminalize abortion, imperiling women's health (November 5, 2003).
Budget released for FY 2005 funds "abstinence-only" sex education and marriage initiatives, freezes funding for Title X family planning services (February 2, 2004).
FY 2005 budget pours money into discriminatory "Healthy Marriage" initiative (February 2, 2004).
FDA bows to political pressure and delays making decision on converting emergency contraception to over-the-counter status (February 13, 2004).
U.S. Delegation to Economic Commission of Latin America and the Caribbean stands alone in refusing to join a declaration reaffirming the Cairo consensus on population development because it objects to the use of phrases like "reproductive rights," "reproductive health," and families "in all their various forms" (March 11, 2004).
July 16, 2004 — Bush administration withholds funding for UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund for third year in a row (July 16, 2004).
Congress denies funding for military women seeking abortion after rape or incest, strips bipartisan Boxer-Snowe amendment from Department of Defense Authorization Bill. (October 7, 2004).

BUILDING THE PLATFORM TO OUTLAW ABORTION

Extreme anti-choice zealot John Ashcroft proposed for U.S. attorney general (December. 22, 2000).
Anti-Choice governor Tommy Thompson selected as Secretary of Health and Human Services (December 29, 2000).
Chris Smith (R-NJ), U.S. House of Representatives' most ferocious opponent of international family planning programs, asked to address the annual "pro-life" march on behalf of the administration on the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade (January 22, 2001).
The president closes the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach (March 29, 2001).
House passes the so-called "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (April 26, 2001).
The president floats possibility of nominating John Klink - an ardent opponent of birth control and spokesperson for the Vatican in its opposition to condom use - to oversee the U.S. global population program (May 23, 2001).
HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson announces new rules making fetuses, but not pregnant women, eligible for prenatal care in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) (March 5, 2002).
House passes the "Child Custody Protection Act" which would make it a federal crime to transport a minor across state lines for an abortion unless the parental involvement requirements of her home state have been met (April 17, 2002).
Louise Oliver, former president of the pro-life Harvard Law School's Society for Law, Life and Religion appointed special assistant to the U.S. State Department Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration (July 2002).
House passes abortion ban legislation (July 24, 2002).
Announcement made by administration that approximately $900,000 available for financial assistance and applications for embryo "adoption" (July 25, 2002).
The U.S. Department of Justice does an about-face and withdraws support for women's rights treaty, maintaining U.S. as only industrialized nation not to ratify the Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (July 26, 2002).
House passes the so-called "Abortion Non-Discrimination Act" (ANDA), a sweeping refusal clause that allows any health care entity to discriminate against any provider who provides or even gives information about abortion (September 25, 2002).
HHS Web sites remove medically accurate information about condom effectiveness and the lack of a proven link between abortion and breast cancer (October 2002).
HHS Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection Charter gives embryos new status as "human subjects" (October 2002).
House passes Bankruptcy Bill HR 333. without Freedom of Access to Clinics (FACE) provisions that would have prevented violent anti-choice protesters from avoiding debts by declaring bankruptcy (November 14, 2002).
U.S. delegation advances position that life begins at conception at population conference for the Asia and Pacific region (December 11-17, 2002).
The administration supports anti-choice Sen. Bill First (R-TN) to take the helm of the U.S. Senate after Trent Lott (R-MS) steps down (December 23, 2002).
Anti-choice and religious extremist doctors opposed to contraception, mifepristone, and reproductive rights appointed to the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (December 24, 2002).
The Presidents FY 2004 budget fails family planning programs and denies women access to abortion services (February 3, 2003).
House passes ban on therapeutic cloning (February 28, 2003).
Politics trump women's health, Senate passes abortion ban, S.3 (March 13, 2003).
Senate and House defeat Department of Defense (DOD) amendments that would have allowed access to abortion for women in the military who use their own funds (May 22, 2003).
Abortion Ban H.R. 760 passes the House of Representatives (June 4, 2003)
Abortion ban, S.3, is sent to conference with the House of Representatives (September 17, 2003).
Congress passes S.3, dangerous ban on abortion, endangering women's lives for political gain (October 22, 2003).
The president signs abortion ban, the first federal legislation since Roe v. Wade to criminalize abortion, imperiling women's health (November 5, 2003).
Congress aims to suspend FDA approval of mifepristone and restrict access to medical abortion — a safe and medically established procedure (November 21, 2003).
House passes so-called "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" giving zygote, embryo, or fetus the same legal rights as a person and further undermining a woman's right to an abortion (February 26, 2004).
Federal District Judge Phyllis Hamilton Protects Patients' Privacy by Denying DOJ's Request for Planned Parenthood Medical Records in Course of Federal Abortion Ban Trial (March 5, 2004).
U.S. Delegation to Economic Commission of Latin America and the Caribbean stands alone in refusing to join a declaration reaffirming the Cairo consensus on population development because it objects to the use of phrases like "reproductive rights," "reproductive health," and families "in all their various forms" (March 11, 2004).
Federal judge in San Francisco strikes down federal abortion ban as unconstitutional; decision in Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) v. Ashcroft a victory for women's rights (June 1, 2004).
Justice Department Files appeal in Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) v. Ashcroft; Continues to pursue unconstitutional Abortion Ban (August 2, 2004).
Federal judge in New York strikes down unconstitutional federal abortion ban; ruling in National Abortion Federation (NAF) v. Ashcroft echoes June 1 decision in Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) v. Ashcroft (August 26, 2004).
Third federal court rules federal abortion ban is unconstitutional; decision in Carhart v. Ashcroft echoes rulings in San Francisco and New York (September 8, 2004).
Justice Department files appeal of Nebraska and New York Abortion Ban rulings; Continues to pursue unconstitutional law (September 27, 2004).

REDEFINING THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE FETUS

House passes "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (April 26, 2001).
HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson announces new rules making fetuses, but not pregnant women, eligible for prenatal care in the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) (March 5, 2002).
Announcement made by administration that approximately $900,000 available for financial assistance and applications for embryo "adoption" (July 25, 2002).
HHS Secretary's Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection Charter gives embryos new status as "human subjects" (October 2002).
House passes so-called "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" giving zygote, embryo, or fetus the same legal rights as a person and further undermining a woman's right to an abortion (February 26, 2004).
Federal District Judge Phyllis Hamilton Protects Patients' Privacy by Denying DOJ's Request for Planned Parenthood Medical Records in Course of Federal Abortion Ban Trial (March 5, 2004).
"Unborn Victims of Violence Act" passes Senate, grants fertilized egg legal status distinct from woman, posing threat to the foundations of Roe v. Wade (March 25, 2004).
President signs so-called "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" into law, may help lay groundwork for future effort to reverse Roe v. Wade (April 1, 2004).

PACKING THE COURTS TO OVERTURN ROE

Anti-choice Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owens nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (May 9, 2001).
Law Professor Michael McConnell, hardline opponent of Roe v. Wade who believes the U.S. Constitution does not protect women's right to choose, nominated to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (May 9, 2001).
Anti-choice District Court Judge Dennis Shedd, with a pattern of ruling against plaintiffs in civil rights cases, nominated to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (May 9, 2001).
Lavenski Smith, past executive director of the right-wing, anti-choice Rutherford Institute of Arkansas, nominated to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (May 22, 2001).
Anti-choice extremist Judge Carolyn Kuhl nominated to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (May 25, 2001).
Anti choice Federal District Court Judge D. Brooks Smith, who held a long-standing membership in a private club that excludes women, nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (September 10, 2001).
Anti-Choice Federal District Court Judge Charles Pickering, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owens, and Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Carolyn Kuhl, who had all been rejected by the Senate, re-nominated to Circuit Courts of Appeals ( January 7, 2003).
Miguel Estrada, who gave evasive responses when questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee on reproductive rights, abandons his bid for appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (September 4, 2003).
Anti-choice, anti-civil rights hardliner Federal District Court Judge Charles Pickering appointed during congressional recess (i.e., without Senate confirmation) to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (January 16, 2004).
Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, who describes Roe v. Wade as "an abomination," appointed to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals during congressional recess, (i.e., without Senate confirmation) (February 20, 2004).
Anti-choice extremist James Leon Holmes, former president of Arkansas Right to Life, appointed to U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Arkansas (July 6, 2004).

REPLACING SCIENCE WITH RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGY

The president floats possibility of nominating John Klink - an ardent opponent of birth control and spokesperson for the Vatican in its opposition to condom use - to oversee the U.S. global population program (May 23, 2001).
House passes the "Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001" (July 31, 2001).
The president prevents taxpayer funding for additional stem cells beyond existing stem cell lines, placing severe limits on stem cell research (August 9, 2001).
The president's FY2001 budget doubles education funding for dangerous "abstinence-only" programs (October 11, 2001).
"Abstinence-only" proponent Patricia Funderburk Ware named to head the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) (November 30, 2001).
U.S. delegation to the U.N. Children's Summit, led by HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, fights sexuality education and opposes condoms for HIV/AIDS prevention (May 2002).
U.S. Department of Education appoints Title IX commission that threatens athletic programs for girls and women. (June 6, 2002).
The president withholds $34 million in funding for birth control, maternal and child care and HIV/AIDS prevention from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (July 22, 2002).
The president withholds more then $200 million in funding for programs to support women and address HIV/AIDS in Afghanistan (August 2, 2002).
Anti-condom "abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Freda McKissic named to the CDC Advisory Committee on HIV and STD Prevention (September 6, 2002).
HHS Web sites remove medically accurate information about condom effectiveness and the lack of a proven link between abortion and breast cancer (October 2002).
"Abstinence-only" proponent Dr. Alma Golden named to oversee Title X, nation's family planning program (October 7, 2002).
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Web site posts a "revised" fact sheet that suggests an unproved link between abortion and breast cancer (November 25, 2002).
House passes ban on therapeutic cloning (February 28, 2003).
State Department denies funds for refugee AIDS prevention (August 1, 2003).
Anti-choice hardliners resort to intimidation tactics to pressure NIH scientists to abandon research on AIDS, sexuality and high-risk behavior (October 28, 2003).
Budget released for FY 2005 funds "abstinence-only" sex education and marriage initiatives, freezes funding for Title X family planning services (February 2, 2004).
FDA bows to political pressure and delays making decision on converting emergency contraception to over-the-counter status (February 13, 2004).
FDA disregards recommendations of its own independent review board, and denies over-the-counter status to Barr Laboratories' Plan B® emergency contraception (May 6, 2004).
Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage fails to garner necessary votes in House; follows defeat of amendment in Senate (October 1, 2004).

CENSORING FREE SPEECH

On his first day in office, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the president restores the Reagan-era global gag rule on international family planning assistance ( January 22, 2001).
House passes the so-called "Abortion Non-Discrimination Act" (ANDA), a sweeping refusal clause that allows any health care entity to discriminate against any provider who provides or even gives information about abortion (September 25, 2002).
HHS Web sites remove medically accurate information about condom effectiveness and the lack of a proven link between abortion and breast cancer (October 2002).
U.S. delegation to U.N. regional meeting reverses U.S. position in support of 1994 global agreement affirming the right of all couples and individuals to determine freely and responsibiliy the number and spacing of their children and to have the information and means to do so (United Nations, 1994) (November 2, 2002).
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Web site posts "revised" fact sheet downplaying condom effectiveness (December 2, 2002).
USAID directs USAID-funded programs to reflect the anti-choice policies of the Bush administration on their Web sites (January, 2003).
The president extends global gag rule to all international family planning programs (August 29, 2003).
Anti-choice hardliners resort to intimidation tactics to pressure NIH scientists to abandon research on AIDS, sexuality, and high-risk behavior (October 28, 2003).
U.S. Delegation to Economic Commission of Latin America and the Caribbean stands alone in refusing to join a declaration reaffirming the Cairo consensus on population development because it objects to the use of phrases like "reproductive rights," "reproductive health," and families "in all their various forms" (March 11, 2004).

Any said "loophole" is superceded by the 5th and 14th amendments to the constitution. Gonzalez had a responsibility to rule accordingly.

The 14th Amendment actually argues against your position, unless your definition of "born" is what most people define as "conceived."

There is a specific event that is an absolute prerequisite to being a "person" under common law.

If you think for a little bit, maybe you can use that knowledge you claim to have gotten from reading Copi and deduce what the event in question is.

If you are referring to "being born", you would be sadly mistaken. And, even if such were the case, you falsely assume all common law is consistent without various interpretations, and applications. There is not just ONE set of common laws.

You also wrongly assume that common law is viewed as infallible.

The only real issue I would have with this is if Mr. Gonzales offers a half-hearted defense of the partial-birth abortion ban, or a half-hearted defense of the ruling against euthanasia.

I expect him to continue Mr. Ashcroft's good work on both of these things, and not try to sabotage either one. After all, he works for the President, who is in favor of both.

This is infinitely better than having him on the USSC, which as I understand it was the other option.

Good points. Let's also realize this: Gonzales has had a long legal career, and pro-lifers have one...ONE...case that gives them pause. If Janet Reno had been a judge instead of a prosecuter, imagine how many cases we would have had as ammo.

Of course I'd rather have a 100% pro-life guy, but one case in a legal career does not make one a threat, especially when he will report to the President, who is rock solid.

=== and do the same when you figure out Tommy Thompson at HHS.

You've got to be kidding ... I'm happy to rant on on Tommy Thompson -- Bush's primary public defender of the "60" (sic) stem cell lines -- if you really wish me to.

I used to work for his lead attorney at the HSS as well. You want to hear about the Nicest Nazi I've ever known?

What does the AG have to do with abortion?

The 14th Amendment actually argues against your position, unless your definition of "born" is what most people define as "conceived."

Not at all. if you dare argue that "born" means given birth on U.S. soil, then Germans, French, etc. may be killed.

Let's skip Mr. Thompson for now, why don't you tell us about the Geneva Convention?

In re Jane Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000) (Doe 1(II))

In a previous appeal by the minor in this case, In re Jane Doe, 19 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2000) (Doe 1 (I)), the Texas Supreme Court was given its first opportunity to consider the statutory requirements for a judicial bypass under the state's Parental Notification Act. In its opinion in that case, the Court set out the factual showing that a minor must make in order to satisfy the statutory bypass requirement that she be "sufficiently well informed" to have an abortion without parental notification, as well as the considerations bearing upon a determination as to whether the minor is "mature." Because the lower courts had denied the minor's application for a bypass, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for "further hearing and consideration" in light of the standards set out by the Supreme Court. 19 S.W.3d at 257. Owen had concurred in the Court's judgment, although not in the Court's explanation of the showing that a minor must make under the bypass provision. Indeed, she specifically criticized the standards adopted by the Court, claiming that they were "minimal" and likely to be met by "[m]ost minors . . . with the assistance of counsel." 19 S.W.3d at 260. Bush appointees Gonzales, Baker, and Hankinson joined the Court majority in the adoption of those standards.

On remand, the lower courts again denied the minor's application for a bypass. In a 6-3 ruling, with Owen writing one of the dissents, the Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the minor had "conclusively established the statutory requirements to obtain a judicial bypass." 19 S.W.3d at 361. Owen's dissent focused in particular on her view that the minor was not adequately informed about abortion alternatives. Owen was extremely critical of the majority, which she accused of acting "irresponsibly" and of "manufactur[ing] reasons to justify its action." 19 S.W.3d at 383, 379. She further asserted that "[t]he Court's actions raise disturbing questions about its commitment to the rule of law and to the process that is fundamental to the public's trust in the judiciary." Id. at 377.

The Court, however, explained that Owen's view contradicted the legislature's judgment in enacting the statute. While the legislature could have required that a minor be "fully informed" in order to make a decision to terminate her pregnancy without parental notification, the majority explained, it chose instead to require that a minor be "sufficiently well informed." 19 S.W.3d at 352 (emphasis in original). The Court further observed that "[t]he Legislature had before it -- but rejected -- at least one bill that would have required physicians to supply specified, detailed information about abortion procedures and alternatives to all women, including minors, in order to obtain their informed consent." Id. (citations omitted). The Court also noted that the fact that "a minor does not share the court's views about what the benefits of her alternatives might be does not mean that she has not thoughtfully considered her options or acquired sufficient information about them." Id. at 359.

Particularly in view of the dissents by Owen and others, the Court's opinion is notable for containing specific sections devoted to "the proper role of judges" and "respecting the rule of law." Indeed, at the outset of its opinion, the Court observed that "[a]bortion is a highly-charged issue" and that the role of "the judicial branch [is] to independently review and dispassionately interpret legislation in accordance with the Legislature's will as expressed in the statute." 19 S.W.3d at 349. In light of the dissents, the majority pointedly cited Felix Frankfurter's explanation of "'the function [of a court] in construing a statute'" as "'ascertaining the meaning of words used by the legislature. To go beyond it is to usurp a power which our democracy has lodged in its elected legislature. . . A judge must not rewrite a statute, neither to enlarge nor to contract it.'" 19 S.W.3d at 350 (citation omitted)(emphasis added). The majority noted that in deciding this case they had "put aside [their] personal viewpoints." Id. They expressly stated that while "judges' personal views [on abortion] may inspire inflammatory and irresponsible rhetoric," the "highly-charged nature" of the abortion issue "does not excuse judges who impose their own personal convictions into what must be a strictly legal inquiry. . . As judges, we cannot ignore the statute or the record before us. Whatever our personal feelings may be, we must 'respect the rule of law.'" Id. at 356. (emphasis added).

Justice Gonzales, a Bush appointee, not only joined the Court's opinion in its entirety but wrote a separate concurrence in which he criticized the dissenting opinions for suggesting a "narrow construction" of the bypass provision nowhere to be found in the statute, and one "directly contradict[ed]" by legislative history. 19 S.W.3d at 365-66. According to Gonzales, adopting the dissenters' narrow view "would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism." Id. at 366 (emphasis added).

In addition to Justice Gonzales, Bush appointees Baker and Hankinson were in the majority.

In re Jane Doe 3, 19 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2000)

This case also involved a minor seeking an abortion who had applied for a judicial bypass of parental notification pursuant to Texas Family Code §33.003. The trial court denied the minor's application and the court of appeals affirmed. In a per curiam ruling joined by six members of the Court, the Texas Supreme Court set aside the judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. In so ordering, the Court noted that "the hearing in the trial court had occurred on the second business day after this Court issued its decision in In re Jane Doe, 19 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2000) (Doe 1)," 19 S.W.3d at 300-01, the seminal case in which the state Supreme Court set out the standards governing a bypass application under the "mature and sufficiently well informed" exception to the parental notification requirement. See supra. According to Justice Gonzales, who agreed with the decision to remand the case, "there is no principled basis in matters of this nature" for not permitting the minor to have the opportunity to present her case "with the benefit of the construction of [the Parental Notification Act] by the highest court in this state," while allowing that opportunity to minors in subsequent cases when the lower courts would have the opportunity to apply the decision in Doe 1. 19 S.W.3d at 306.

Nevertheless, Justice Owen dissented from the Court's ruling remanding the case. In his decision concurring in the judgment, Justice Gonzales specifically criticized Owen's dissent as to the remand, stating that:

she presented her application without the benefit of that opinion's instruction

One of the issues on appeal was whether the trial court had properly denied the minor's application for a bypass under the provision of the statute mandating a bypass when the minor establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that parental notification "may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor." Tex. Fam. Code §33.003(i). Although Justice Owen was not in the minority on that issue, her opinion took a stringent view of what a minor must prove under the "emotional abuse" provision, staking out a position more extreme than that of most of her colleagues. The minor had testified that her father was "an alcoholic, that in the past he has gotten intoxicated, overreacted, and taken anger over the children out on her mother and 'become physical' with her mother." 19 S.W.3d at 307. She further testified that she did not want to inform her mother about her decision to have an abortion because "her mother would tell her father and her father would become angry and physically take it out on her mother." 19 S.W.3d at 308. This was insufficient for Owen, who stated that "the evidence of physical abuse of Jane Doe's mother was not so direct, clear, and positive that a trial court was required to conclude as a matter of law that if one of Jane Doe's parents were notified, then Jane Doe may be emotionally abused." 19 S.W.3d at 320. Four justices disagreed, noting that, under the express terms of the statute, a judicial bypass "shall" be granted when the minor shows that parental notification "may lead" to her emotional abuse. 19 S.W.3d at 306 (emphasis in original). Moreover, these justices were expressly critical of the severe standard of proof that Owen would have required:

In addition to Justice Gonzales, Bush appointees Baker and Hankinson were in the six-justice majority that ordered the case remanded for further proceedings. Baker and Hankinson were among the group of four justices who would have held that the minor had satisfied her burden of proof under the "emotional abuse" provision and should have been granted a bypass.

In re Jane Doe 4, 19 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. 2000)

Like the prior cases, this one also involved a minor's appeal from the lower courts' denial of her application for a judicial bypass so that she could obtain an abortion without parental notification. In a 6-3 ruling, with Owen writing a dissent, the Texas Supreme Court ordered that the lower court judgments be vacated and the case remanded to the trial court for another hearing in light of Doe 1 (above), which was issued the same day as the minor's hearing in this case, and a subsequent decision, In re Jane Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278 (Tex. 2000). Although the Court concluded that the minor had failed to demonstrate her entitlement to a bypass, the Court held that "[n]either the minor nor the trial court should be deprived of our clarification of the law in these cases merely because the hearing occurred before the trial court, the minor, or her lawyer were aware of this Court's holdings." 19 S.W.3d at 327. Owen, however, would have denied the minor even the opportunity to present her case with the benefit of the Court's decisions in Doe 1 and Doe 2. Bush appointees Gonzales, Baker and Hankinson were in the majority. -- Source

What do you mean, "expect it generally"? Don't tell me you're jumping on Askel's "Bush is Satan" bandwagon.

The Constitution is not concerned with outlawing murder, other than by the government.

So then a person MAY be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law?

btw, i'll have to go out the door in a second, but i'll try to answer any other concerns you have when i get back.

btw, Scott Peterson was doing the depriving, so it was okay?

And you can't please some of these people EVER. :o)

Is knocking on a door drunk justification for execution?

What in the world does that have to do with the question i asked? you'd have to ask the investigators and the D.A.'s office why there was or was not a prosectution. Not me.

Not at all. if you dare argue that "born" means given birth on U.S. soil, then Germans, French, etc. may be killed.

Actually, in event of war or other national emergency, foreign nationals may be apprehended and expelled or detained, and even killed (if they resist said apprehension). Indeed, one complaint of note is that we've allowed foreign nationals from known terrorism-sponosring countries to run around loose on our soil since 9/11.

However, please also note that the 14th Amendment cannot be construed to criminalize abortion. At best, if the theory you argue does hold merit, it forbids the government from engaging in compulsory abortion.

The 14th Amendment does not outlaw murder. That is still up to the states.

It's their hobby I believe...they practice it with uncommon conviction.