Phyllis Schlafly’s Son Fears Federalist Society Pushing Trump to Nominate Pro-Abortion Justice

Andy Schlafly, an attorney and son of the late Phyllis Schlafly, criticized the Federalist Society on Tuesday, alleging the group is pushing for President-elect Donald Trump to nominate a Supreme Court justice who is not pro-life.

“The Federalist Society is the D.C. group pushing Trump to nominate another David Souter, who then cast a pro-abortion vote nearly every time on the Supreme Court. The Federalist Society is not, and has never been, pro-life,” Schlafly wrote in an email.

And Gorsuch is an Episcopalian:

http://heavy.com/news/2017/01/neil-gorsuch-abortion-pro-life-anti-donald-trump-supreme-court-quotes-views-planned-parenthood/

Also:

"Judge Gorsuch is likewise seen as someone who might be more easily confirmed in the Senate than other Supreme Court nominees, given that Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently warned that Democrats would fight hard to stop court nominees who were not “bipartisan and mainstream.”

"Gorsuch was successful in easily winning a Senate confirmation on a voice vote in 2006 as an appointee of President George W. Bush. John Malcolm, a lawyer at the Heritage Foundation, believes that Gorsuch would be less contentious than some of the other Supreme Court nominees because he doesn't have a record of strident comments that would fuel a confirmation fight.

...

"For example, in the case of Pino v. U.S., Gorsuch discussed whether a 20-week-old "nonviable fetus" had the same rights as a "viable fetus." Gorsuch, showing that he is not pro-life, indicated that his answer is "no" unless the Oklahoma Supreme Court specially found rights for the "nonviable fetus." Rather than render a pro-life ruling, Gorsuch punted this issue to the Oklahoma Supreme Court for it to decide. Gorsuch's approach is similar to the unjust approach based on viability that underlies Roe v. Wade." (Andy Schlafley)

...

As far as how justices are ranked, an independent, published ranking of judges said Gorsuch is not even in the top 100 most conservative federal appellate judges. See Article: Judged by the Company You Keep: An Empirical Study of the Ideologies of Judges on the United States Court of Appeals, 51 B.C. L. Rev. 1133 (Sept. 2010).

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2017/01/thorner-latest-contender-to-replace-scalia-judge-neil-gorsuch-is-not-pro-life.html#more

From the Phyllis Schlafley Eagles on Supreme Court candidates:

http://www.pseagles.com/Nominees_Supreme_Court

..."nonviable fetus" had the same rights as a "viable fetus."

Viable vs. nonviable is a bunch of B.S. Fertilization is fundamental, viability is not, it's just a measurement of the local medical technology with respect to small infants.

For example, consider two babies born at just 20 weeks past fertilization. One is born in the middle of say, Montana, during a blizzard and 150 miles from a big hospital with neonatal care. The other is born in say, Dallas, one mile from a similar hospital. Only a fool believes the two babies have the same probability of survival because their probability of survival is dependent on the local technology.

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.