"Legal Beat: Bar Association Votes to Back Abortion Rights" August 12, 1992
SAN FRANCISCO -- After a contentious debate, the policy-making body of the American Bar Association voted to take a pro-abortion rights position at the organization's annual meeting.
The decision by the ABA, which followed Monday's vote by convention attendees to endorse the proposal, was a victory for abortion-rights advocates. At its annual meeting two years ago, the ABA adopted a neutral position.
Before the 276-168 vote yesterday, the ABA's new president, Michael McWilliams of Baltimore, told reporters that the ABA could no longer remain neutral.
"You can't dodge an issue just because it's tough," said Mr. McWilliams, a Baltimore lawyer, in remarks to reporters. "And you can't call abortion a non-legal issue."
The ABA's perceived alliance with one side or the other in the abortion debate was a matter of concern to lawyers attending the annual meeting here this week. Both the National Abortion Rights Action League and the National Right-to-Life Committee have been closely monitoring the ABA action, spokeswomen for the groups said.
"People who support this abortion rights resolution want the prestige of the ABA behind the pro-choice movement," Texas bar President Harriet Miers said Monday, arguing against adoption of the resolution supporting abortion rights."
I think too many are rushing to judgment on Ms. Miers. Her opposition to the ABA pro-abortion resolution gives me hope.
Big deal. Owen is also pro-life, but she's younger, more qualified and married with kids.....
Ahhh ... good. I was looking for a timeframe and so forth. Now e need to find WHYshe argued against the ABA taking a position based on the voted of -ONLY- the convention delegates.
My belief is that the cite offered is not dispositive of Ms. Mier's position on the issue. My understanding is that she advocated the entore mebership of the ABA be given a voice on the position, instead of limiting the voice to only convention delegates.
And, because one has to be repetetive on FR because the readers here "don't," I care much less about her personal position as to either the morality or legality of abortion that I do about her commitment to judicial restraint.