How's that for service. LOL
Posted on 04/02/2009 3:48:33 PM PDT by kellynla
The president of the Susan B. Anthony List has characterized as “bizarre” the views of pro-abortion activist Dawn Johnsen as a vote nears in the U.S. Senate on her nomination as assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.
"Dawn Johnsen does not represent mainstream America or the type of common ground abortion policy President Obama promised this nation," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List. "Her bizarre characterizations of pregnancy as 'slavery' and mothers as 'losers in the contraceptive lottery' expose an unacceptable disdain for commonsense abortion restrictions and motherhood in general. Furthermore, Johnsen's opposition to existing federal restrictions like the ban on partial-birth abortion casts doubt on her ability to perform her duties faithfully as the head of the Office of Legal Counsel."
Across the country, Susan B. Anthony List members expressed outrage at Johnsen's nomination, sending over 26,000 letters of opposition to their U.S. senators. On March 19, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination by a vote of 11-7.
While Johnsen served as legal counsel for the National Abortion & Reproductive Rights Action League (now NARAL Pro-Choice America), she authored numerous legal opinions rejecting any and all restrictions on abortion.
Some notable quotes from Johnsen's amicus curiae brief in the case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services include:
Abortion restrictions 'reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.
The argument that women who become pregnant have in some sense consented to the pregnancy belies reality... and others who are the inevitable losers in the contraceptive lottery no more 'consent' to pregnancy than pedestrians 'consent' to being struck by drunk drivers.
The experience [of abortion] is no longer traumatic; the response of most women to the experience is relief.
(Excerpt) Read more at calcatholic.com ...
ping
I prefer the term “breeder”. Is this “woman” a lesbian?
We know little about this woman without a picture.
>I prefer the term “breeder”. Is this “woman” a lesbian?
LOL
I guess this guy considers his mother a slave ... which makes him ...???
seems that 26,000 letters opposing her nomination were not enough for sick, twisted minds like hers to get the thumbs up
does this woman realize her mother was a, as she put it “fetal container” for her or else she wouldn’t be here....what kind of a person is she that she would so belittle the miracle of life to women simply being slaves to their pregnancy....my God, what is this world coming to.
now that i see a picture of her....she looks like one of those women who hate men because they never had any type of success in a relationship with a man. therefore, because of her jealousy of other women that are in successful relationships, she turns against those women and hates all things feminine...a female misogynist, if you will.
Yeeeeesh!!!!!!!!
I will never understand why some women identify themselves solely by the “right” to kill their unborn child.
I think it’s great we have birth control and a woman can choose when to have a child. I’m a modern woman, I have a career and children. But when you go to such extremes to make sure women are ready, willing and able to kill their unborn child (and that is what it is I don’t care what technical label they want to give it to make it seem less alive), it becomes a mental illness.
You can tell all of that by looking at her? Pretty impressive.
Oh, by the way, according to Wikipedia, she is married with two children.
We don’t need a picture of this woman. Something is really sick in her soul if she hates babies and children that much. Obviously a very unhappy childhood.
guilty!
Ladies, look out for that sperm barreling down the street at at 60 mph. The left has such odd things to say about this subject. A comment on a different site spoke of "government controlled wombs". Do these folks have a basic working knowledge of contraceptives?
Don’t be talkin bout yer prezident like that.
Early on, we were alarmed by President Obama’s selection of the radical Dawn Johnsen to head the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. We have also wondered (based on the reporting of the Wasington Post’s Barton Gellman) about Johnsen’s candor.
Today Johnsen’s radicalism and her lack of candor were both on display before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The issue was Johnsen’s position on the relevance of the Thirteenth Amendment to the abortion issue.
Here is what Johnsen once wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court:
Statutes that curtail [a woman’s] abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest.
Here is Johnsen’s testimony today about that brief:
I made no Thirteenth Amendment argument. I can state categorically I do not believe the Thirteenth Amendment is relevant at all.
Senator Specter, who is pro-abortion, told Johnsen that he did not understand her answer. He was being polite. Although Johnsen’s brief did not argue that restrictions on access to abortions violate the Thriteenth Amendment, it did argue by analogy from that amendment. It is therefore disingenous for her to deny haveing made a Thirteenth Amendment arguemnt.
Moreover, at the time she filed the brief in question (20 years ago) Johnsen certainly thought the Thirteenth Amendment was relevant; otherwise she would not have cited it. Perhaps she now “categoricaly” believes otherwise. If so, she should admit that she made a Thirteenth Amendment argument, say that she has changed her mind, and attempt to explain why.
Johnsen should also explain whether she stands by this appalling language that also appears in her brief:
The woman] is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not wholly her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends. Thus, abortion restrictions “reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers.
Johnsen’s appointment is consistent with the emerging (and entirely predictable) trend of the Obama administration — appoint non-radical liberals and a few centrists to cabinet level positions, and then populate key sub-cabinet jobs with radicals.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/02/022936.php
thanks for photo. a truly evil looking, nasty tussy.
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.