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

Contact: Amber Matchen of the American Life League, 540-903-9572 or amatchen@all.org

WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Judie Brown, president of American Life League, issued the following statement in response to news that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales is being considered as the replacement for U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft:

"President Bush appears to be doing all that he can to downright ignore pro-life principles. There can be no other explanation for his recommendation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. Gonzales has a record, and that record is crystal clear.

"As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales' rulings implied he does not view abortion as a heinous crime. Choosing not to rule against abortion, in any situation, is the epitome of denying justice for an entire segment of the American population -- preborn babies in the womb.

"When asked if his own personal feelings about abortion would play a role in his decisions, Gonzales told the Los Angeles Times in 2001 that his 'own personal feelings about abortion don't matter... The question is, what is the law, what is the precedent, what is binding in rendering your decision. Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job.' Gonzales' position is clear: the personhood of the preborn human being is secondary to technical points of law, and that is a deadly perspective for anyone to take.

"President Bush claims he wants to assist in bringing about a culture of life. Such a culture begins with total protection for every innocent human being from the moment that person's life begins. Within the short period of one week, the president has been silent on pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter's desire to chair the senate judiciary committee, and has spoken out in favor of a judge with a pro-abortion track record to lead the Justice Department.

"Why is President Bush betraying the babies? Justice begins with protecting the most vulnerable in our midst. Please, Mr. President -- just say no to the unjust views of Alberto Gonzales."

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

They routinely are. Read your newspaper's crime section.

However, the Constitution does not outlaw murder, except by the government. The only crime specified in the Constitution is treason. Murder is not outlawed by the Constitution. Murder of federal officials and employees is outlawed by federal statute. Murder of other persons is outlawed by state statutes. The punishments vary from state to state. Some states, for instance, impose the death penalty, and some do not. Some states require "special circumstances" to be present before the death penalty may be imposed. The specific "special circumstances" that make a murderer eligible for the death penalty can and do vary from state to state.

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.

The point stands that the meaning of the word "born" is not consistent with your interpretation.

However, please also note that the 14th Amendment cannot be construed to criminalize abortion.

It most certainly DOES. By your line of reasoning, the 14th amendment cannot be contrued to criminalize murder or any number of civil rights violations. Do you actually believe this. If not, what would be the difference?

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

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

False disjunct fallacy again. the 14th amendment outlaws murder, while the states set penalties.

Poohbah, (Howlin, you too FRiend, and your crew)

Scott Peterson was just convicted of First degree murder of his wife, and Second degree murder of his UNBORN son Connor. It was just stated by the Judge on FoxNews that he could have been found guilty of First Degree murder of Connor. The Judge added that based on the evidence he thought that Scott should have been found guilty of First Degree murder of Connor and that Second in this instance seemed incoherent.

Now Poobah, in your 209 you told me:

"One has to be born in order to be a person in the eyes of common law.

This, in turn, means that 5th and 14th Amendment arguments are worthless for stopping abortion, as the underlying common law doesn't support the use of the 5th and 14th Amendments for that purpose."

Poobah, If Connor isn't a person under the law, how can someone be convicted of MURDERING him.

This seems contradictory to me--to a level of insanity. Of course I have no legal experience, but this seems to be taking something so simple and twisting it.

An unborn baby IS a person in the case of Connor "in the eyes of common law", BUT if Laci Peterson decided the week before she died to abort Connor, somehow he would then NOT be a person.

So if I understand this correctly an unborn baby IS WHATEVER his mother and some black robed monkeys say he is.

Poohbah, could you please enlighten me again as how this can be.

And since you have been so helpful in enlightening me I will share this with you. Perhaps you will find it enlightening as well:

72. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God—to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty—that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".

Pope John Paul II-- Evangelium Vitae, (The Gospel of Life ) 1995

Murder of person A by person B is not a civil rights violation, unless person B is acting under color of authority.

The 14th Amendment forbids the government from murdering you.

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

Not by the state.

Consider this: a burglar breaks into my house. I shoot him. I have denied him due process of law, as I have denied him his right to life and did not grant him "substantial due process."

Kindly note that the state is not actually aborting babies.

False disjunct fallacy again. the 14th amendment outlaws murder, while the states set penalties.

Good grief.

You've just taken a hugely expansive interpretation of the Constitution.

As a strongly pro-life freeper reading through this thread I note several things.....

1. I see NO evidence that Gonzalez is not pro-life.

2. I see many folks who have been waiting to come back out of the woodwork and attack the President for reasons that most likely have nothing to do with this appointment.

3. I see a President who has done many, many things in four short years to reduce the number of abortions, and to return value to the unborn and weak, and create in this country a culture of LIFE.

4. I am praising the Lord for the victory of this pro-LIFE President and the progress that will be made in the coming years because a man of God is in the White House.

5. I am urging his critics here to pray for him that God would continue to guide his steps, and give him the wisdom that he seeks to make decisions that are pleasing to HIM.

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.