Posted on 11/12/2004 9:07:10 AM PST by cpforlife.org
To: National Desk
Contact: Amber Matchen of the American Life League, 540-903-9572 or amatchen@all.org
WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Judie Brown, president of American Life League, issued the following statement in response to news that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales is being considered as the replacement for U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft:
"President Bush appears to be doing all that he can to downright ignore pro-life principles. There can be no other explanation for his recommendation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. Gonzales has a record, and that record is crystal clear.
"As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales' rulings implied he does not view abortion as a heinous crime. Choosing not to rule against abortion, in any situation, is the epitome of denying justice for an entire segment of the American population -- preborn babies in the womb.
"When asked if his own personal feelings about abortion would play a role in his decisions, Gonzales told the Los Angeles Times in 2001 that his 'own personal feelings about abortion don't matter... The question is, what is the law, what is the precedent, what is binding in rendering your decision. Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job.' Gonzales' position is clear: the personhood of the preborn human being is secondary to technical points of law, and that is a deadly perspective for anyone to take.
"President Bush claims he wants to assist in bringing about a culture of life. Such a culture begins with total protection for every innocent human being from the moment that person's life begins. Within the short period of one week, the president has been silent on pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter's desire to chair the senate judiciary committee, and has spoken out in favor of a judge with a pro-abortion track record to lead the Justice Department.
"Why is President Bush betraying the babies? Justice begins with protecting the most vulnerable in our midst. Please, Mr. President -- just say no to the unjust views of Alberto Gonzales."
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
If someone kills you (and please don't bitch and moan that this is a threat) is that up for God alone to judge too? Or can we throw that SOB in jail?
Wow. A reading of penumbras and emanations, not to mention the creation of a "living Constitution," worthy of Justice Blackmun.
You have something beyond the rhetoric to argue here?
No, a reading of the plain meaning of the text.
You mean the fact that he argued in favor of a State school system setting up their own standards for admissions to the State school system?
Do you understand the principle of republicanism?
Amen.
Absolutely...no matter whether their feelings are pro-life or otherwise, judges and the AG are supposed to do only what the LAW says.
I am very pro-life. I recognize the need however for law to triumph over opinion in ALL cases.
Activist judges gave you Roe v. Wade, the answer is not more activist Judges...even those on our side.
The answer is non-activist Judges, and less Federal intrusion.
Actually, I think you meant "federalism:" instead of "republicanism."
=== Putting all that aside, saying that the Bush family is guilty of murder is the ultimate Bush bashing.
Cite, please.
Bush will continue to disappoint those who think he is pro-life. Pro-life talk is political shtick or as Moynihan put it about Clinton 'boob bait for the bubbas'.
Bush had a moment of truth in Pennsylvania when he choose Specter over Toomey. Politics trumping pro-life is Bushomatic.
I think, from a terrorism point of view as well as a person who Bush43 could trust and respect point of view, Bush43 has made a good choice.
I consider refusing to legislate from the bench to be a GOOD thing. >>
Me too. Was there a parental notification law in effect in Texas when he made the decision to NOT let the parent's know about this girl getting an abortion?
If there were a law in effect, he DID legislate from the bench. I'm not from TX and don't know the specifics of the matter.
The principle of a republican form of government, where a State can decide on its own standards for enrollment in their own State schools.
If the State wants to set racial quotas for their schools, well then, they set them, and it's up to the State's voters and the State's House to set the rules.
Yes. Said law included a provision for bypassing said notification requirement in specific circumstances.
If there were a law in effect, he DID legislate from the bench.
Actually, he didn't. The lower court interpreted the law in a way that was not consonant with the legislature's intent.
Lets assume for the sake of argument that you are right (legal scholars like Dr. Charles E. Rice have addressed this matter, the meanings of "born," "person", "nonperson", "human" with regard to the 14th amemdment indepth) and that unborn children are left out of the Constitution and the 14th amemdment. The Natural Law given to us by God and make know to us by reason still tells us that the unborn child is a person, a human being, thus with a right to life. Even if the constitution did not cover him (the same way the text was said not to cover slaves) murder could still never be endoresed or allowed under cover of law.
You don't honestly believe your posts are important enough to bookmark, do you?
Those of us who've been here longer than a couple of years remember your screeds accusing Bush and the Saudi of everything under the sun, up to and including MURDER to further their family dynasty.
BTW, I notice you didn't DENY it.......LOL.
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.