Posted on 07/23/2013 2:38:55 PM PDT by jazusamo
President Barack Obama delivers a statement announcing
the nomination of three candidates for the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in the Rose
Garden of the White House, June 4, 2013. Nominees from
left are: Robert Leon Wilkins, Cornelia "Nina" Pillard,
and Patricia Ann Millett.
(Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)
(CNSNews.com) – The Senate will consider the nomination of Cornelia Pillard, a vocal abortion advocate who said abstinence education was unconstitutional for violating “reproductive justice,” to serve as a judge on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a hearing Wednesday.
“The equal protection critique of abstinence-only curricula is strengthened and rendered more amenable to judicial resolution by the fact that sex education classes are designed not only to expose students to ideas, but also to shape student behavior,” Pillard, a Georgetown University Law professor, wrote in a 2007 article titled “ Our Other Reproductive Choices: Equality in Sex Education, Contraceptive Access and Work Family Policy ” in a faculty publication.
“Obligatory education permeated with discriminatory content alone raises serious constitutional concerns,” the article continued. “But the conduct shaping purpose of sex education curricula makes them vulnerable to equal protection challenge even if communicating retrogressive sex roles in traditional academic classes might not be.”
Pillard’s 2007 assessment reflects both a radical ideology and disregard of basic factual information, said Valerie Huber, president of the National Abstinence Education Association, which is urging the Senate to reject the nomination.
“There are politically liberal nominees, but this is beyond that,” Huber told CNSNews.com. “She is so extreme that when I was reading this I had to remind myself this was a real person that actually believes the words I’m reading. She believes abstinence education should be a criminal activity.”
Pillard is one of three nominations President Barack Obama announced in a Rose Garden speech on June 4.
“Nina Pillard’s career has been defined by an unshakeable commitment to the public good,” Obama said. “She twice served in the Department of Justice and was an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund. Her landmark successes before the Supreme Court include defending the constitutionality of the Family and Medical Leave Act and opening the doors of the Virginia Military Institute to female students, and today, Nina is a professor at Georgetown and, if confirmed, would continue the D.C. Circuit’s strong tradition of distinguished scholars going on to serve as judges -- from Antonin Scalia to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”
The fact that the D.C. Circuit has traditionally been an exalted post for judges is also for concern, Huber told CNSNews.com.
“Why would the president pick that circuit? Is she being considered as a Supreme Court nominee?” Huber wondered.
The Pillard article maintained that abstinence-only education promoted a male-dominated view.
“Retrogressive gender ideology, prescribing chastity and maternity for women while assuming lustfulness and autonomy for men, is at the heart of today's abstinence-only education movement. In that regard, the abstinence-only approach conflicts with the substantive norms of both equal protection and reproductive justice,” the article said.
“In sum, overt teachings and the pervasive subtext of abstinence-only curricula reflect the expectation that women should and will become mothers, rely on their husbands or financial support, care about their relationships with males more than the males do, have a greater stake in and identification with chastity than men, and do not value the importance of sexual release as highly as men do,” the piece continued.
The article further said, “By promulgating sexual double standards, those curricula foster a world view and behavior at odds with our equal protection law. Their prescriptions for women and men resonate vividly with the traditional sex roles that were the targets of so many of the early sex equality cases. If it is contrary to equal protection to make even formally neutral governmental decisions based on sex stereotypes, it would seem, a fortiori, unconstitutional to teach those same views in public schools.”
But abstinence education has no gender bias, Huber said.
“We encourage sexual restrain among young males and young females,” Huber said. She added that abstinence education began during World War I and was predicated on “eliminating a double standard for males and females” with regard to sexual behavior.
“The concerns are two-fold. This shows she is not very careful in making legal recommendations,” Huber said. “It also shows she clearly has an ideological bent that trumps curious judicial review. Both are reasons she should not be confirmed.”
The Pillard article heralded abortion rights as key to gender equality, but said the matter could not end there.
She wrote, “We must eschew that shell game because the truth is that reproductive rights are important both for the reasons that the Constitution recognizes liberty rights to privacy and bodily integrity and for the reasons that it recognizes the right to sex equality.”
“Bringing into the picture issues beyond abortion helps to show the close and mutually reinforcing relationship between sex equality and reproductive rights,” the article said.
“In fuller context, we see how reproductive rights are a hinge pin between liberty and equality: Women need practical access to a range of reproductive choices to enjoy sex equality, yet they need equality to make reproductive decisions freely and in ways that are responsible to themselves, those they love, and the broader society,” it added.
Abstinence is something that should be a matter of common sense but fewer and fewer parents possess that quality and here's a judicial nominee that states to teach it is unconstitutional.
OK....I am on my third pass through my Robert C. Byrd Pocket Constitution, and I have yet to find the bit about reproductive justice.
These warped lefties wouldn’t know constitutional or otherwise if it fell off of the roof of a highrise onto their demented heads. They just make it up as they go along, hoping their ludicrous statements will go unchallenged.
I think it all hinges on how you understand the phrase “in Order to form a more perfect Union” along with the eminations of the next phrase “establish Justice”
:)
violating “reproductive justice,”
WTH, is that ?
And she is a Judge ?
A lawyer ?
That old school.
excerpt:
“Cornelia Thayer Livingston “Nina” Pillard (born March 1961) is a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General and former Assistant to the Solicitor General, now a tenured law professor at Georgetown University. She is among the most accomplished Supreme Court advocates in the United States, having argued nine cases and briefed more than twenty-five before the Court. She has also briefed and argued cases in several of the nation’s federal courts of appeals, and has worked on all phases of civil litigation in federal trial courts, including jury and bench trials. On June 4, 2013, President Obama announced that he is nominating Pillard to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.”
ridiculous to the extreme
Another plague visited on the people of the US by Harvard Law School, freedom’s biggest enemy.
when liberals use the word “justice” as part of a phrase, it just means socialism as it applies to the particular area they are aiming at.
“social justice” = socialism as applied through the lens of social issues
“reproductive justice” = socialism as it applies to sexual issues
etc etc
So it is constitutional to teach little boys it is good to stick your penis in your buddy’s anus and and to receive the same. But it is unconstitutional to teach them that they should refrain from such activity until they are of legal age. I limited the discussion to same sex for the time being. The permutations and combinations are difficult to describe.
I need an asbestos suit to protect myself from the coming rainstorm of fine and brimstone.
God have mercy.
The Senate will consider the nomination of Cornelia Pillard, a vocal abortion advocate who said abstinence education was unconstitutional for violating "reproductive justice," ... Pillard’s 2007 assessment reflects both a radical ideology and disregard of basic factual information, said Valerie Huber, president of the National Abstinence Education Association, which is urging the Senate to reject the nomination.
where do they find these people?
Hussein has gathered up the scum from all across the country and brought them into his administration.
This lady is a freak, so she’s perfectly qualified to be an Obama judicial nomination.
You nailed it, FRiend.
I believe he and his handlers go to great extremes to find these leftist turkeys to put them in positions of authority, they'll carry on their Marxist aims after Obummer is out.
No doubt.
It is very likely she has a paper trail of progressive, “Living Constitution” ideology a mile long and just as deep.
She literally argues that the “constitution” is “UN-constitutional” since it is a document of “Negative Rights”.
All of this BS that we are dealing with comes down to the failure to understand one simple concept;
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
They insert themselves as the creator of rights and completely fail understand the fallen nature of man.
You would think the Enviro-Nazi’s would have an issue the elevation on Man.
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.
