an After abortion

3,400 confidential and totally free groups to call and go to in the U.S...1,400 outside the U.S. . . . 98 of these in Canada.
Free, financial help given to women and families in need.More help given to women, families.
Helping with mortgage payments and more.More help.
The $1,950 need has been met!CPCs help women with groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places.
Help for those whose babies haveDown Syndrome and Other Birth Defects.
CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

John G. Roberts, Jr., Supreme Court Justice nominee. (He was a law clerk to Supreme Court then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist from 1980-1981)

Another bio here.

This is what will raise the hackles of all pro-abortion Democratic Senators:
"[w]e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled… The Court’s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion… finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.” ~ Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) (Nos. 89-1391, 1392).
My local paper today printed a great letter to the editor that is well worth quoting right at this very moment:
"One might recall that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in her confirmation hearing, refused to speculate on how she might vote on any particular controversial cases that might come before the [Supreme Court], stating that it amounts to inappropriate and a priori declaratory judgments not the constitutional province of the court. Yet this former ultra liberal, former American Civil Liberties Union attorney [emphases mine] was approved by a vote of 97-3 by the full Senate."
And a May 2004 American Spectator article reminded us all,
"When pro-life groups criticized Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor, who was chosen for her sex, not her ideology, Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) thundered: 'I believe there is something basically un-American about saying that a person should or should not be confirmed for the Supreme Court ... based on somebody's view that they are wrong on one issue.' Sen. [Ted] Kennedy [D-MA] agreed, complaining: 'it is even more offensive to suggest that a potential justice must pass the litmus test of any single-issue group.'"
Are you listening, Senators Boxer, Kennedy, Schumer, Biden and Leahy? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

UPDATE: NRLC PRESS RELEASE, 9 PM JULY 19, 2005, from which I learned something I didn't know before:
The current Supreme Court, including Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor, is divided 6 to 3 in favor of the Roe v. Wade doctrine that abortion must be allowed for any reason until "viability" (about five and one-half months), and for "health" reasons (broadly defined) even during the last three months of pregnancy. The myth that the current Supreme Court is divided 5 to 4 on Roe, although cultivated by some pro-abortion polemicists and repeated by some journalists, was refuted by Annenberg Center's here.

UPDATE (from Emily): See our friends at The Southern Appeal for an ongoing John Roberts festorama.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME