Posted on 11/12/2004 9:07:10 AM PST by cpforlife.org
To: National Desk
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."
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
Your post 27 is not convincing.
Oh, dude...
You just dated yourself big-time with that line (c8
Arafat's death, and the US diplomatic reaction to the new Palestinian leadership is a precursor to Castro's fall.
It's going to be interesting to watch the next few weeks.
Those who demand that we punctilliously observe every jot and tittle--including the imaginary ones--of the Geneva Convention, while excusing the enemy's grossest violations thereof, are giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.They need to either shut up, or they may discover that those of us who are intent on winning this war may start noticing them, and that we might start reading Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution.
So ... basically, what you're saying here is that the only way to "win" this, the fourth in a War on a Noun series, is to beat Terrorists at their own game?
I don't take kindly to your threats, Poohbah. I have no doubt whatsoever that your ilk will prevail and folks like me will be erased forever one day but until then, shove it up your paper asshole.
No problem!
Here's the lie:
"When Gonzales was a member of the Texas Supreme Court, he voted to allow a teenager to get an abortion without notifying her parents, circumventing the notification law in that state."
OK, so what IS Texas law re: parental notification of minor's abortion?
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:
Justice Owen contends that Doe should not receive the benefit of a remand, concluding that Doe did not attempt to demonstrate that she was sufficiently mature and well informed to make the decision to obtain an abortion. While her proof relating to the showings required in Doe 1 is abbreviated, it is clear from the record that she presented her application without the benefit of that opinion's instruction.
19 S.W.3d at 306 (emphasis added).
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:
[U]nder the current statutory scheme, it is highly unrealistic and inappropriate for the courts to differentiate among the perceived degrees or types of abuse that may occur or to consider whether the abuse would occur anyway so that one more instance doesn't matter. Abuse is abuse; it is neither to be trifled with nor its severity to be second guessed. . . . Justice Gonzales would also require proof of "serious emotional injury" on top of the evidence already in this case . . . Justice Hecht and Justice Owen would go further and require Doe to demonstrate that the abuse equated to physical and sexual abuse and resulted in "material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning." …This sort of parsing among types or degrees of abuse is not indicated anywhere in the statute.
19 S.W.3d at 307.
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.
Texas law forbids a physician from performing an abortion on a pregnant, unemancipated minor without first giving notice to the minor's parents at least 48 hours before the procedure. See Tex. Fam. Code 33.002(a). Note this is a parental notification statute, not a parental consent law. There is, however, an exception to the statute. If the young woman can prove in a private hearing to a district judge that she is "mature and sufficiently well informed", the judge can grant her a waiver and the abortion may be performed without her parent's knowledge.
Post #27 is a lie, and I just substantiated my assertion.
It may come down to that. Samuel Huntington wasn't that persuasive the first time I read him, but he was a lot more persuasive when I reread The Clash of Civilizations last year. Amazing what seven years and several colleagues getting killed on 9/11 can do to one's perceptions.
But I'm astonished at how many people demand that we not only obey the Geneva Conventions as written, but as they wished them to be written, and then found every reason to excuse the terrorists' atrocities.
In a war, there are two sides. Those who blatantly favor one side over the other in public discourse declare their true loyalties.
I don't take kindly to your threats, Poohbah.
If you perceive my position to be a threat, then you must have a very guilty conscience.
I have no doubt whatsoever that your ilk will prevail and folks like me will be erased forever one day but until then, shove it up your paper asshole.
Ma'am, you seem to have an unhealthy interest in men's rectal orifices.
It would indeed my friend, it would indeed.
Remember Thanksgiving, 1989?
The Berlin Wall down, freedom spreading like fire on spilled gasoline...
15 years later, it may be deja vu all over again.
The "tie-breaker" part is demonstrably false, since the decision was 6-3.
That is exactly what I mean. While you are making your "threat" in far more polite terms then many, it's still a "threat" not debate or discussion. It's a all or nothing threat. So why should the Senate continue listening to you?
Now for the sake of discussion, don't you think it's very possible that President Bush and his people have been thinking about Supreme Court nominations and how they are going to get them confirmed? I have to believe they have.
I also have to believe that they considered the fact that Spectre will be part of that process one way or the other. If not chair he could still stop a nomination if he wanted.
Again, I have to assume that they not only knew this months ago, but that also are planning how to confirm nominees they already have in mind.
But instead of fighting to get a Pro-Life nominee confirmed some people on the right are making this an abortion battle before the first nominee is named. So far the only thing these efforts has done is polarize an unnamed Supreme Court nominee and gotten the pro-abortion people into the battle.
Did you miss the sarcasm in post 359? We were laughing at you and your equally hysterical buddies.
Post 325 is tedious, boring and has nothing to do with Gonzales' suitability to the position of AG. Why did you want me to read that one?
What does your opinion in post 350 have to do with anything?
I believe your assessment of Bush is dead wrong.
As far as post 184 goes. I have read that entire site previously based on one of your posts.
Do you think I don't know exactly what abortion is? Do you think I am pro-choice?
I'm strongly pro-life. Strongly.
And I think you are wrong about Gonzales.
I am ready for my next reading assignment.
But why don't you do what I suggested and READ THE OTHER POSTS ON THIS THREAD. THE ONES THAT DON'T AGREE WITH YOU.
You could really learn something.
One more time. The AG doesn't make make law.
Focus on the law makers.
Whining about every minor thing just labels you a whiner.
Spend your political energy wisely.
Being open minded I post this:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41386
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
It's hard to comment on that friend. Thanks for sharing it.
Yeah, it's a threat. It's one that the GOP would be wise to heed, because I know I'm not the only guy making it.
GOTV is the key to victory. It's long, hard, tedious, and unpaid work. And I do not appreciate those who waste my time. I have things I want to accomplish in this life. Some of those things, I put off so that I could do GOTV and other scutwork. So did a lot of other people. I know people who put off business startups or expansion efforts. I know people who sacrificed vacations with their families.
When Specter shot his mouth off, he gave us the finger. If the GOP Senate caucus lets him do what he threatened to do just days after the election, then we will have lost an opportunity...and all of us GOTV volunteers will have gotten 54 more birds flipped to us.
All I can judge Specter by is his statements before things started getting uncomfortable for him...and those statements do not fill my heart with optimism.
If the feedback I get on my work is "Well, it wasn't that important," then I'm going to find something else to do with my time.
I always think about Jimmy about this time of the year, when football's on TV and thoughts of a Thanksgiving table start to float around in my head.
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.