[ThomasMore]

WHY oh why is sending a pro-life judge to the SCOTUS considered to be “religious judicial activism”. It’s stretching things a bit too much... Tomi. And how is this appointment UNCONSTITUTIONAL?!!! Duh!?? I can be an atheist and be pro-life! I simply believe that at conception, a new human being is born... unique in every way...(test the DNA). Therefore I respect and protect that human life through a pro-life agenda. WTH does that have to do with my faith (other than MY faith reinforces my belief).

[Liz]

It has begun to leak out that some young women patronizing these "PP health clinics" for abortions have also been "weinsteined"......sexually abused by abortionists. These places are hotbeds for potential sexual abuse. The lowlife abortionist has already sold out his conscience. So having power over young vulnerable women creates an ideal climate for sexual abuse.

Arguably the most famous case is Dr. Brian Finkle, who had over 100 complaints. He was extremely aggressive, threatening pro-lifers and making bizarre statements. After he went to prison for a 35 year sentence in 2001 for abusing women he quickly got on a prison dating website with the nickname "Road Kill". Don't know if he's still on there.

There are other abortionists with multiple complaints as well.

[Sir Bangaz Cracka]

Believing in anything is a “faith” thing. Can’t believe killing pre-born babies is wrong without being a Christian and believing in the Bible. Can’t believe killing condemned murderers is wrong without believing in the Bible and being a Christian, oh wait...(scratches head)

[lepton]

WHY oh why is sending a pro-life judge to the SCOTUS considered to be “religious judicial activism”.

---

That wouldn’t. However, selecting a judge not because of their dedication to the Constitution, but rather specifically to overturn a particular case is said activism.

That said, Roe v. Wade was so poorly decided that it would go away in comportment to the Constitution. One needn’t resort to activism.

[fuzzylogic]

The mistake she is making is believing we’re trying to appoint somebody that won’t interpret the Constitution as it is written, and do it from a conservative perspective. The left believe we’re doing this because it is EXACTLY what they would do. They would have no problem stacking the court with 100% progressive judges that legislate from the bench with no conservative representation. So they assume we’re the same.

She doesn’t see that you can be correctly interpreting the Constitution and also not find the “right” to kill your baby. The left wants to talk about “precedent”. Ok, the “right” to kill your baby was not determined by “precedent”, it was determined by liberal activist judges listening to a bunch of BS statistics.