Posted on 07/05/2005 5:16:51 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
Democrats are prepared to filibuster to block any anti-abortion nominee proposed to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said Tuesday.
"The filibuster is on the table. It's been on the table for 200 years," Boxer said when asked what methods could be used to block a Supreme Court candidate who would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, the three-decade old decision legalizing abortion.
-SNIP-
Boxer called a threat to legalized abortion an "extraordinary circumstance."
"It means a minimum of 5,000 women a year will die. So all options are on the table," she said.
Boxer called O'Connor a crucial moderate voice, saying the first female appointed to the high court was a strong backer of environmentalism and reproductive rights.
"She has been a powerful voice for moderation," Boxer said. "This is a philosophy her successor should embrace ... We cannot go back to the dark days. Roe must remain the law of the land."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
New Jersey?! I still get upset with how Lautenberg stole that election!
Sorry for the double post.
It is particularly extraordinary to Boxer who lists the Abortion industry as her number one supporter on her website.
Boxer is the lapdog of the abortion mills, she will go to the mat on this one.
Half of them future women!
I'd love to see her conduct a 48-hour filibuster over abortion.
That would be the blood of patriots. Right?
"The Tree of Liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots." - Thomas Jefferson, I believe.
Oh for crying out loud. The Big Lie is that anti-Roe equals anti-choice. Most people don't realize that overturning Roe will not end legalized abortion, which is why the Dems can keep getting away with such lies.
It's really incredibly amazing that after all these years the anti-abortion folks haven't managed to explain this most important fact to people. Embarrassing, really.
Absolutely right, Lousenberg stole it entirely with the help of the NJ Supreme Court. I have not been represented in the senate for years and years.
Did you say left? And they couldn't get it with votes so they had a judge discover a new "right". Yeah, left is what it is.
Yes, I said 'left' ... should have put in [pun intended] :)
If we do not convert this court to a 5/4 or a 6/3 majority, we are idiots. I think, I hope President Bush will do what he said he would do. It would begin the slow, tedious,arduous process of reversing 60 years of insane rulings from the SC. It will take a long time to reverse all of the damage done. If Stevens and Ginsberg would get out of the way conservativism could take giant strides. The dems know this and their fear is palpable. They are flailing about as it sinks in that they are irrelevent.
I love every minute of it.
Wow! I wish I could get in on that scam. If only nine out of ten of my checks cleared, I could have retired years ago.
Damn. If you write checks over 200.00 in Texas, they come and arrest you and prosecute you. 143 checks. She didn't pay anymore attention to that than she does to what she says.
The 'Rats are making up for the lost votes via abortion by promoting illegal immigration and voting fraud. Unfortunately, as we found out in WA, it works for them.
When I see Schummer and Layhe bitching, it warms the cockles of my heart. These hearings will be fun to watch. Long, hot summer for these smug hooligans. Their sins have found them out.
BTW - Fat just died.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Jamais reculez á tyrannie un pouce!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! Never give an inch to tyranny!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
If you ask and reputable gynecologist, he will tell you that with the medical advances, there is no reason that a child needs to be aborted to save "the life of the woman"--except is such very, very extreme circumstances, that that "operation" could/would be covered under a different medical pervue...
I expecially love it when they use "the health of the mother" when justifying "partial-birth abortion"---bah, what are C-sections, but operations that help when there are reasons for either the mother's health, or the baby's health that a vaginal birth is not doable!!!!
Besides, didn't she say this was how it has been for 200 years...??? I didn't think that there were "legal" abortions until Roe v. Wade...was that 200 years ago?
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.