He is not pro-abortion. He interpreted ONE law that the Texas legislature wrote; it is not his fault that the legislature didn't write the law correctly. He could not, as a judge, re-write the law. He was not an activist judge.
Finally, the most important reason is that this is a foreshadowing of what we can expect when Supreme Court nomination hearings come up, and a preparation for more filibusters. Indeed, radical pro-abortion Senator Charles Schumer said of the Gonzales hearings: “There’s a lower standard, frankly, for attorney general than for judge, because you give the president who he wants.”
The Attorney General does not decide the future of Roe v. Wade, and never decides other abortion issues such as parental consent laws for minors. Furthermore, by focusing on the Gonzales memos, it diverts public attention toward Iraq policy and away from the continuous vicious tactics Senate Democrats employ every time President Bush chooses qualified minority candidates.
As it turns out, Alberto Gonzales is not a “blank slate” on abortion; his views are well known. He supports Roe v. Wade and is opposed to parental consent laws. As a Texas Supreme Court Justice, he voted with the majority against parental consent. In his opinion on the ruling, Gonzales wrote: “While the ramifications of such a law may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature.” (Italics mine). We can assume, therefore, that Alberto Gonzales would apply the law of the land (Roe v. Wade) by ruling to keep abortion legal if he were to become a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
In a 2001 interview, the Los Angeles Times asked Gonzales if he would allow his personal view on abortion to influence his choice of judges. He replied:
“There are no litmus tests for judicial candidates. My own personal feelings about abortion don’t matter. The question is, what is the law…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.”
That is exactly the neutered type of response given by Senator John Ashcroft during his confirmation hearings as Attorney General. President Bush obviously meant it when he said he’d have no litmus test for judicial candidates. In Gonzales’ own words: "My judgment is that the court has had ample opportunity to look at this issue," he said. "So far as I am concerned," he stated, the right to abortion is "the law of the land, and I will enforce it." Senate Democrats need not worry about the Supreme Court. It’s pro-lifers that should be worried.