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-
I thought National Security was the most important issue. It is for the President, he has never said anything to the contrary. Who cares if the AG is pro or choice . WHO CARES?
No, they don't. The Constitution is a framework for government. It does not define what the law must say. Rather, it assumes the existence of the English Common Law.
then a state can have the right to permit murder
When was Lynching made illegal? Duels? Abortion? Before that, were these not therefore legal?
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.
Such as the Roman Law of Paterfamilias? You are projecting a Christian understanding of Natural Law onto a document written in religiously neutral terms. The illictness of murdering children comes from the Common Law understanding of a Christian English people, not from some phrase in the Constitution. Cart before the horse again.
HE does not believe what YOU believe.
Yes he does. He believes the issue of abortion is not addressed in the constitution, and it is up to the people's representatives in the Legislatures to craft laws on the topic.
"From the beginning of the Republic until that day, January 22, 1973, the moral question of what abortions shoudl be legal had been left entirely to state legislatures." (Tempting, p. 112)
He certainly does NOT believe that abortion is outlawed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. That is precisely the sort of judicial lawmaking that he is so opposed to.
In any event, this does not upset me as much as it would were Gonzalez appointed to the Supreme Court or if Arlen Specter becomes head of the judiciary.
I think the battle over Specter is far more crucial to a whole host of issues, the most important of which is pro-life, and I would not suggest we waste any time, energy, or resources opposing the Gonzalez appointment.
When will it occur to good and decent pro-life people that the right of a woman to be secure in her person is violated by a rapist and the spawn that may be created by that involuntary act, and that the right of a person to be secure in her person from an unreasonable seizure is guaranteed by the Constitution? When talking about the right of an unborn person to life, we must take into account the rights of the mother to be free from having to tolerate the seizure of her person by another person. She must be allowed to end the seizure, if she wants to, but the baby must be allowed to live, if it can. Governmentally protectable life begins at the point of independence from the body of another soveriegn person.
There is no "right" to own a house in the Constitution, there is no right to attend a movie in the Constitution, there is no right to eat Big Macs in the Constitution.
The Constitution is not an enumeration of our rights!
Go back to FR Civics 101.
I don't believe that there is a right to have an abortion, but your argument is flawed in the fact that our rights are not just the ones that are listed in the Constitution.
The "spawn" of a rapist is an independent being with its own genetic signature. Western society long ago discarded the notion that the sin of the father passes to the child.
While your rights argument does have merit in the case of a pregnancy that threatens a mother's life, inconvenience cannot be considered grounds for murder.
just watch what they do, no what they say
That was the line of the unpopular John Newton Mitchell, who died on a NY sidewalk of a heart attack the day after the election of the first George Bush, as I recall. Of course, the GOP will ignore conservatives in favor of "broadening our base" after it has safely corraled their votes for the latest election.
Plain English please.
What is not conservative about a Judge rendering a decision based on what the law says rather than what he feels the law should say?
Is there as much evidence now that
Albert Gonzales would uphold abortion were he on the Supreme Court (and he may be yet) as there was in 1990, when the first George Bush nominated the ultraliberal David Souter?
Priscill Owen objected to Gonzales, so are you going to say that she was wrong for supporting the law when Bush appoints her to SCOTUS?
Obviously, if you think Gonzales is right than Owen must be wrong.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38ae1fc86628.htm
Check out the illegitimate source of the FEDERAL "equal protection" dogma in this country - the squalid 14th Amendment.
It doesn't have to be.
Abortion is a State's issue.
Had the Feds stayed out of the abortion argument, we would see the issue decided on a State by State basis by the people who painted the map red this past November 2 and passed every single marriage amendment on the ballots.
The trick is to get this issue out of the Feds hands, and back to our hands.
Then, we need Legislators who write just law, and Judges who uphold the laws as written by the legislatures.
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that Alberto Gonzales will uphold the law as it is written.
What we have now are Judges who will seek to overturn any laws banning abortions based on their feeling on the subject, that's called legislating from the bench.
If we have Judges who acknowledge that their jobs consist of interpreting laws as written, not as they believe they should be written, then we've won a major victory.
The problem everyone has with the decisions being discussed, is that Gonzales opined within the scope of an ambiguous law and reached a verdict that most of us do not approve of.
That's the law's fault, not the Judge's fault.
Obviously, if you think Gonzales is right than Owen must be wrong.
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.