Miers' 1993 Speech Draws Fire from Pro-Life Groups

Prolifeblogs.com ^ | October 26, 2005 | Tim from Prolifeblogs

[Stellar Dendrite]

Miers' 1993 Speech Draws Fire from Pro-Life Groups

Pro-life organizations are expressing concern over statements made by Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers in 1993 to the Executive Women of Dallas in 1993.

During the speech, which was recently provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Miers gave several examples of contentious issues, including abortion, which she said involved religion and law. She stated,

"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 law and religion make for [an] interesting mixture but the mixture tends to evoke the strongest of emotions. The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination. And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes the most sense. Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago."

... Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. However, when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act.

The Family Research Council, a widely respected national conservative and pro-life organization, called Mier’s statements "disturbing":

[Miers'] words are a close paraphrase of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. Her use of terms like criminalize abortion to characterize the pro-life position and guarantee freedom to describe the pro-choice position should have sounded alarms in the White House during the vetting process.

When we defend the right to life, we hearken back to the Declaration of Independence, not to some strictly sectarian view. Science has long ago answered the question of when human life begins. The constitutional and legal question is whether we are going to defend innocent human life from lethal assault.

This speech raises very troubling questions about Miss Miers' views of constitutional matters. Operation Rescue reacted strongly, promising to "actively oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States if she refuses to withdraw her name from consideration."

Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation's largest public and pro-life policy women's organization, also called for Miers' nomination 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.

Matt Staver, Liberty Counsel president, told the Washington Post, "This concept of self-determination could clearly be read in support for things like abortion or same-sex marriage, and it's a philosophy that cuts a judge loose from the Constitution."

Kyleen Wright, president of the Texans for Life Coalition, called Miers's principle of self-determination "troubling" and was concerned about Miers's choice of words in characterizing the abortion debate. "In the pro-life movement, we don't recognize a right to decide who lives or dies," Wright told the Post.

Additional reactions from pro-life bloggers: click here.

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[FreeRep]

I agree, as a very conservative prolife evangelical conservative, I've been supportive of the Miers nomination because I support President Bush in this time of war and I think it's time for a conservative evangelical on the Supreme Court. However, now I am very concern about what she said about abortion in the 1993 speech, and I will not support someone who is pro-choice or pro-abortion.

[trubluolyguy]

"The law and religion make for [an] interesting mixture but the mixture tends to evoke the strongest of emotions. The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination. And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes the most sense. Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago."

---

Good bye Harriet. Have a nice life.

[The Iguana]

Wow.

I've been skeptical about this nomination.

But this...wow. Dr. Dobson, somewhere, is waiting angrily for his phone calls to the White House to be returned.

It's getting harder and harder to think she would be an improvement on O'Connor.

[Dog]

I found this over at Confirmthem.com....this is what Justice Blackmun said.....sound familiar.

Here is what Justice Blackmun said in Casey:

“The decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy has no less an impact on a woman’s life than decisions about contraception or marriage. Because motherhood has a dramatic impact on a woman’s educational prospects, employment opportunities, and SELF-DETERMINATION, restrictive abortion laws deprive her of basic control over her life. For these reasons, “the decision whether or not to beget or bear a child” lies at “the very heart of this cluster of constitutionally protected choices.””

[Dog]

She is to the left of O'Conner based on this speech.

[trubluolyguy]

this is what Justice Blackmun said.....sound familiar?

---

Yes and I am now starting to wonder if the POTUS knew of her Pro-infanticide leanings the whole time?

[trubluolyguy]

OF course she could bring in an 8 month pregnant woman to the senate hearing chamber, perform an abortion on her right there and many on THIS FORUM would still demand that we all support her to back the POTUS.

[Dog]

I don't think he knew.

[trubluolyguy]

I don't think he knew.

---

But...but he looked into her heart!


(sarcasm)

[Sometimes A River]

I don't understand why anyone would think she's a conservative.

Just because she's an Evangelical? I guess Jimmah Carter was too.

[SerpentDove]

I love James Dobson, but boy does he have egg all over his face!

I would bet he's feeling pretty betrayed right now.

[SkyPilot]

"The law and religion make for [an] interesting mixture but the mixture tends to evoke the strongest of emotions. The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination. And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes the most sense. Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago."

Really?

Tell that to the God you are supposed to worship Harriet.

"If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge—whether bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults—take them to the place the Lord your God will choose."

Deuteronomy 17:8

"You have declared this day that the Lord is your God and that you will walk in his ways, that you will keep his decrees, commands and laws, and that you will obey Him."

Deuteronomy 26:17

"Jesus said to his disciples, 'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with a particular task, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. Therefore, keep awake - in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake.'"

Mark 13:31-7

[SerpentDove]

The White House contacted Jay Sekulow and James Dobson, assuring them that the nominee was A-OK.

If this reflects Harriet Miers' true beliefs, it represents an astonishing betrayal by the administration. I would be willing to guess that both Sekulow and Dobson feel very used right now.

[Dane]

If this reflects Harriet Miers' true beliefs, it represents an astonishing betrayal by the administration. I would be willing to guess that both Sekulow and Dobson feel very used right now

It's from 1993, and may I rmeind you Ronald Reagan signed a pro-abortion bill when he was Gov. of California.

[The Iguana]

And this came after her apparent conversion, right?

Maybe she told Bush she's pro-life now. Maybe she is. But the rest of us could be forgiven for wondering how sincere that impression really was.

I keep looking for that piece of evidence that brings out what Bush saw in her. But all I have seen so far just raises my concern level.

[Cboldt]

I will not support someone who is pro-choice or pro-abortion.

Not even if they are an evangelical Christian who is personally opposed to abortion?

[governsleastgovernsbest]

" I would be willing to guess that both Sekulow and Dobson feel very used right now."

Agreed, but Miers' pro-choice statements are so extreme that I have to believe that the WH was unaware of them at the time they made the representations to Dobson et. al about Miers' supposedly pro-life views.

It would just boggle the mind to think the Bush administration would have said what it apparently did while knowing she had made these statements. Like they say, not only would it have been wrongm, it would have been stupid.

[Cboldt]

It's getting harder and harder to think she would be an improvement on O'Connor.

She might be. It depends on which side of the fence one prefers the nominee to come down on.