Posted on 10/26/2005 3:14:48 PM PDT by jdhljc169
Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, is calling for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’ name to be withdrawn.
“CWA was founded to provide an alternative to radical feminists – who claim to speak for all women – and who seek to impose policies that do not respect unborn babies, family or God. Too often these radical feminists found success, not through democratic means, but through activist courts,” said Wendy Wright, executive vice president.
“Harriet Miers has shown respect for Christian values by attending an Evangelical church. But her professional and civic life leaves us questioning whether she chooses to reflect and advance the views of the group she’s with at the moment. Though she attends an Evangelical church known for its pro-life position, during the same time period she advanced radical feminists and organizations that promote agendas that undermine respect for life and family,” said Wendy Wright. “This drives us to rely upon her actions, her deeds, her words as opposed to the endorsements of those who have worked with and known her.
“We believe that far better qualified candidates were overlooked and that Miss Miers’ record fails to answer our questions about her qualifications and constitutional philosophy,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s chief counsel. “In fact, we find several aspects troubling, particularly her views on abortion and a woman’s ‘self-determination,’ quotas, feminism and the role of judges as social activists. We do not believe that our concerns will be satisfied during her hearing."
“Every time she quotes or cites women she admires, they’re to the left of Betty Freidan. We desire role models who have a strong record of promoting and advancing constitutional principles. Miss Miers’ record, as reflected in her speeches, is of promoting a leftist agenda that relies upon the courts to impose their views,” LaRue commented. “We’d prefer to have someone fond of quoting Margaret Thatcher or Antonin Scalia rather than Barbra Streisand and Gloria Steinem. Some of Miss Miers’ own comments border on male-bashing.”
“The record we know is a record that convinces us that Miers is not even close to being in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, as the President promised the American people,” LaRue noted.
“We wanted to back the President, and sought evidence to support this nomination, but we find this Supreme Court nominee unqualified and her record troubling. However, we look forward to a nomination that we can whole-heartedly endorse,” said Beverly LaHaye, founder and chairman of Concerned Women for America.
Harriet Miers.
I think you guys are reading self-determination wrong. In this case, self-determination means "not at the Federal level."
She is saying the Fedgov has no buisness legislating abortion, which is correct.
Roe is not best attacked with the morality argument, but the federalist argument, that it is a power not given to Fedgov to legislate reproductive rights, and should be addressed at the state level.
But she also must consider "whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling" which is one of the many reasons Casey upheld Roe.
Her deference to stare decisis would prevent her from overturning a case that already addressed the very criteria that she lays out to be met.
It's a non-starter with her, and she signaled that by painstakingly paraphrasing Casey.
It's a means of skirting the issue.
What she's referring to is a woman's ability to abort her unborn child, which-if we're to go by this one speech-she's agnostic on, at least with respect to the role of the judiciary.
Roe is not best attacked with the morality argument, but the federalist argument, that it is a power not given to Fedgov to legislate reproductive rights, and should be addressed at the state level.That is correct, though some people just can't help themselves.
You are right, that part is disturing. Reliance should only be considered when deciding HOW QUICKLY you should do the right thing, and whether you should allow people time to make changes. It has no bearing on the Constitutionality of the priciple involved, and thus should have no bearing on the final decision.
Point to you...
CWA is a bunch of ignorant fools who don't know how to play politics. THis plays right into the hands of the DEMs. I've never been so ashamed of conservatives as I am now. Oh woe is me.
I wonder if Dobson is having any second thoughts.
—Harriet Miers
See here
Geez, sorry, ignore my previous post. It's already been posted.
For some reason the usual suspects haven't chimed in to bash CWA on this one yet...I suppose they need some time to come up with a new angle of attack on this.
***
Keep reading, they came up with one.
Does this mean they have to consider whether the loss of revenue to abortion doctors and pro-abortion groups will be too hard or unfair to them?
Does this mean they have to consider whether the loss of revenue to abortion doctors and pro-abortion groups will be too hard or unfair to them?It could be loosely construed that way, couldn't it?
"When told about the Miers “self-determination” idea on abortion, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a supporter of abortion rights, looked amused and surprised. Asked how those ideas sounded to her, Feinstein said, “Not bad. I’ll have to pursue that.”"
She is saying the Fedgov has no buisness legislating abortion, which is correct.
... The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion. ... The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determinationhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/miers/EWDSpeech.pdf
Even conservatives are divided on whether an abortion is ever justified.
It's certainly theoretically possible that Roe will be overturned, which it should because it's bad law, but if anything that will allow more late term abortions in liberal states.
The conservative hope that Roe will ever be overturned and somehow outlaw abortion throughout the nation is a pipe dream.
***
I've said this all along. I don't think it will ever happen in my lifetime. Even though I am pro-life, I want more than a supposedly pro-life vote on the SC.
You're overreacting and reading too much into her statement. If you read her comment "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,", she's saying "to each individual according to his or her own concience." But that does not, by any stretch of the imagination, amount to an endorsement of Roe vs. Wade, which was issued by judicial fiat rather than public support.
The Constitution is neutral on the position of abortion. It's clearly up to the will of the citizens of individual states, as expressed through their elected representatives. And Miers' remarks are fully constitant with that.
The CWA should have stayed out of this, or at least taken a "wait and see" approach. Conservatives who can't bring themselves to support her should at least give her a chance to explain her general views in the confirmation hearings.
Are you in favor of outlaeing abortions or striking down Roe which sends it back to the states? Whether she thinks she's strikng down Roe to send the "self-determination" to the individual, or thinks she's striking down Roe to give the States the power to legislate it, I think she is signalling Roe must go.
Abortion would be illegal in some states and legal in others if Roe is reversed... which it should be. I can see Idaho outlawing while Washington allows abortions, and see pregnant women going across state lines to get one.
Voters will have the chance to move to a pro-life state, or fight pro-choice laws at the state level.
The White House was twisting arms. I find it appalling that Bush and his minions would so overtly try to use conservatives.
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.