Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Miers' 1993 Speech Draws Fire from Pro-Life Groups
Prolifeblogs.com ^ | October 26, 2005 | Tim from Prolifeblogs

Posted on 10/26/2005 5:18:51 PM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: harrietmiers; miers; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last
To: Acts 2:38
I don't understand why anyone would think she's a conservative.

Because the President said so! and Jimmy Carter is an Evangelical as much as John Kerry is Catholic.
21 posted on 10/26/2005 5:51:43 PM PDT by FreeRep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dog
I don't think he knew.

Ummmm. A bit irresponsible there, if he didn't have something to hang his hat on. He knows the difference between personal and judicial philosophy. He knew she was a blank slate on the latter, and he knew he promised a nominee who was a strict constructionist - benchmark = Thomas or Scalia.

He didn't want a fight with the moderates and the DEMs, and collaborated with Senate leadership to circumscribe his menu of picks.

22 posted on 10/26/2005 5:52:51 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Dane

So if Harriet Miers is pro-abort, you're okay with it? Doesn't surprise me.

There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, Harriet Miers could do to get you to to oppose her nomination.

However, if you care to open your eyes, and pull your head out of...uh..the clouds...you will notice that many conservatives do care, and this is a very important issue to them.

Dare I say, a "deal-breaker."


23 posted on 10/26/2005 5:55:47 PM PDT by SerpentDove (If Miers is pro-life, why are Harry Reid, Ellen Goodman and Susan Estrich supporting her?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FreeRep

Does her own record she she's a conservative?

I don't think so.

She's the Presidents personal lawyer.

It's a crony pick.


24 posted on 10/26/2005 5:58:30 PM PDT by Sometimes A River (Serving on a Meals-on-Wheels program is NOT a qualification for a SC nominee. Call your Senators!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

This goes well beyond abortion. She also favors government forcing affluent neighborhoods to have low income housing included. I was in Texas at the time of this speech - we had a lazy welfare slug living next door at taxpayer expense, while I worked 12+ hour days to make ends meet. Apparently it didn't occur to Harriet that the taxpayer shouldn't be forced to buy housing for slugs (in 2 years, he never worked a day) in nice neighborhoods - or that it simply isn't a matter for government involvement at all!

She also said Texas could no longer afford to NOT have an income tax - the needs of the poor outweigh the interests of the taxpayer in keeping their own money.

I would defy anyone to read this speech without concluding she is somewhere to the left of Jimmy Carter. I'm Southern Baptist myself, but she is one of those who would argue that Jesus would have us give to the poor (I agree) - and that if we don't do it voluntarily, then the government should help Jesus collect the cash.

I've opposed Harriet since the sart - but Good Grief! She'll be worse than O'Connor ever was!


25 posted on 10/26/2005 5:59:44 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SerpentDove
If Mr. Pres. didn't know about this, it's gonna cause some problems. However, she apparently has The Pres. pretty bamboozled.

She'll just tell him..."oh, that was a youthful indiscretion. I'm all for you now, all for you."

26 posted on 10/26/2005 6:00:05 PM PDT by ALWAYSWELDING
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

>>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.<<

If the White House called with glowing recommendations to both Sekulow and Dobson, which they did, since both these good men took their word on good faith and endorsed Miers....and the White House did NOT do any research and find out about these views, it shows glaring incompetence and recklessness on the part of the administration.

And it blows the whole "I'm just gonna trust the President" theory to smithereens.


27 posted on 10/26/2005 6:00:11 PM PDT by SerpentDove (If Miers is pro-life, why are Harry Reid, Ellen Goodman and Susan Estrich supporting her?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite

drip, drip, drip...


28 posted on 10/26/2005 6:01:20 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeRep
I`m also a pro life Christian that was trying to support Miers,until today.I/we have been praying to THE LORD,that if she does not stand for the things of God, then may she not be the one.This is 1993,long after her conversion to Christ!

IT`S OVER FOR HER,I HOPE.
29 posted on 10/26/2005 6:01:57 PM PDT by presidentsfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dog
I believe the speech in question was submitted by the White House to the Senate, as a supplement to the questionnaire.

Or not?

30 posted on 10/26/2005 6:04:57 PM PDT by Gelato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FreeRep

I am in the same boat as you and up until today, I was leaning toward her. Read the following and that will seal the deal for you; NO TO HARRIET!!

Miers parroted Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy's exact reasons for not overturning Roe v. Wade while professing her deep abiding respect for stare decisis.

Miers says "Judicial activism can occur when a judge ignores the principles of precedent and stare decisis. Humility and self-restraint require the judiciary to adhere to its limited role and recognize that where applicable precedent exists, courts are not free to ignore it. Mere disagreement with a result is insufficient to justify ignoring applicable precedent"

Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy refer to the stare decisis of Roe no less than 11 times in their opinion, making sure to cement it as Court precedent. Miers's answer binds her to deference.

None of this should give anyone comfort in the least.
It is all a very strong signal from Miers that she will turn to stare decisis and not vote to overturn Roe.


31 posted on 10/26/2005 6:06:51 PM PDT by no dems (Go ASTROS!! For the first time ever, a World Series played in Texas,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SerpentDove
If the White House called with glowing recommendations to both Sekulow and Dobson, and the White House did NOT do any research and find out about these views, it shows glaring incompetence and recklessness on the part of the administration.

And it blows the whole "I'm just gonna trust the President" theory to smithereens.

Excellent points. If either Dobson or Sekulow were to make a statement tomorrow pulling their support, the nomination would be withdrawn within 24 hours. I hope it happens.

32 posted on 10/26/2005 6:10:19 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest (read my posts on Today show bias at www.newsbusters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SerpentDove
You earlier said that you think that Jay Seukelow has been used.

You do know that Mr. Seukelow has worked professionally with Ms. Miers in the last 10 years and I believe his comments were genuine, due to his knowing her in a professional work atmosphere.

33 posted on 10/26/2005 6:14:43 PM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Jay Sekulow said on Laura Ingraham that he supported Miers based in part on his reassurances from the White House.

Whoops, that has been blown to smithereens.

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

But back to the point I made before: if Miers is pro-choice, you're okay with that. Not surprising.


34 posted on 10/26/2005 6:19:30 PM PDT by SerpentDove (If Miers is pro-life, why are Harry Reid, Ellen Goodman and Susan Estrich supporting her?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SerpentDove
Jay Sekulow said on Laura Ingraham that he supported Miers based in part on his reassurances from the White House

And on TV I saw him say he has worked with Miers professionally and knows her.

35 posted on 10/26/2005 6:21:54 PM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: FreeRep
Compare Harriet Miers's answer to question #28 on the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire paraphrasing the wording of the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 case which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and expanded abortion rights:

"Any decision to revisit a precedent should follow only the most careful consideration of the factors that courts have deemed relevant to the question. Thus, whether a prior decision is wrong is only the beginning of the inquiry. The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable, whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent, and whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling."

—Harriet Miers



"So in this case, we may enquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable; whether the rule's limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it or significant damage to the stability of the society governed by it; whether the law's growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal anachronism discounted by society; and whether Roe's premises of fact have so far changed in the ensuing two decades as to render its central holding somehow irrelevant or unjustifiable in dealing with the issue it addressed."

U.S. Supreme Court
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)



The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable
So in this case, we may enquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable

whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent
whether the law's growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal anachronism

whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling
whether the rule's limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it


Miers parroted Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy's exact reasons for not overturning Roe v. Wade while professing her deep abiding respect for stare decisis.

Miers says "Judicial activism can occur when a judge ignores the principles of precedent and stare decisis. Humility and self-restraint require the judiciary to adhere to its limited role and recognize that where applicable precedent exists, courts are not free to ignore it. Mere disagreement with a result is insufficient to justify ignoring applicable precedent"

Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy refer to the stare decisis of Roe no less than 11 times in their opinion, making sure to cement it as Court precedent. Miers's answer binds her to deference.

None of this should give anyone comfort in the least.
It is all a very strong signal from Miers that she will turn to stare decisis and not vote to overturn Roe.

 
36 posted on 10/26/2005 6:23:07 PM PDT by counterpunch (- SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dane

So what? Why did he say his decision was influenced by the call from the administration, if it was not?

And answer the question: does it matter to you whether Miers is pro-choice?


37 posted on 10/26/2005 6:28:43 PM PDT by SerpentDove (If Miers is pro-life, why are Harry Reid, Ellen Goodman and Susan Estrich supporting her?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SerpentDove
I've noticed that over the last week the replies by the Pro-Miers crowd have become less and less and less.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good thing. It's just Freepers coming to their senses.

I have seen some post that they've changed their mind, others will just stop defending her. There will always be the few who will go to the mat out of stubbornness.

I knew us Freepers would come around. We're a smart bunch.

38 posted on 10/26/2005 6:28:52 PM PDT by ALWAYSWELDING
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dane
And on TV I saw him say he has worked with Miers professionally and knows her.
And Senator Rudman of Rhode Island recommended David Souter to George H.W. Bush. Rudman knew Souter and worked with him professionally for 5 years. Rudman also gave assurances that Souter was pro-life and would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 
39 posted on 10/26/2005 6:31:04 PM PDT by counterpunch (- SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ALWAYSWELDING

I agree. The tide has LONG SINCE turned on this nomination. There will always be the token Bushbots on this board who drink the Kool-Aid down to the last drop. We keep them around just for laughs.

I secretly suspect they are conservative FReepers under another screenname. I mean, how can anybody really be that delusional?

Okay, that was mean.


40 posted on 10/26/2005 6:31:56 PM PDT by SerpentDove (If Miers is pro-life, why are Harry Reid, Ellen Goodman and Susan Estrich supporting her?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson