Reaction to Court’s Abortion Ruling Falls Along Predictable Party Lines
Surprise, surprise. Look who supports partial-birth abortion:
... The three Democratic presidential hopefuls leading in early preference polls — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards — opposed the decision.My Comments:
Clinton said in a statement Wednesday that the decision marked “a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health.”
She added that the issue “is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account.”
Obama weighed in with support for the dissenting opinion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote that the ruling “tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.”
In his statement, Obama said he was “extremely concerned that this ruling will embolden state legislatures to enact further measures to restrict a woman’s right to choose, and that the conservative Supreme Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade, which is established federal law and a matter of equal rights for women.”
Edwards said in a statement that he “could not disagree more strongly” with the decision, which he characterized as “an ill-considered and sweeping prohibition that does not even take account for serious threats to the health of individual women.”
“This hard right turn is a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election,” he said.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who also is fighting for the Democratic nomination, said the decision was “a dangerous step backward in regard to Americans’ rights to personal choice and privacy.”
“While not unexpected, I believe this unfortunate decision is a clear signal that the Supreme Court is opening the door to further challenges to personal medical decisions between patients and doctors that should not involve the government,” he said in a statement.
Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY’s List, an organization dedicated to electing Democratic women candidates who favor abortion rights, said in a statement that the “Bush administration and his court appointees have so whittled away at the basic reproductive rights of women that Roe is hanging by a thread.”
[More]
There's just no getting around it. Despite their claims of wanting to reach out to "values voters", the Democrat Party believes in only one "sacrament", and that's abortion on demand.
If any of the Democrat candidates for President has his or her way, he or she will nominate more Supreme Court justices like Justice Ginsburg, whose dissent yesterday was basically a full-fledged brief for infanticide. It's really sick.
Not that the Republicans are so deserving of our support (and Rudy Giuliani will absolutely NOT receive mine), but I just don't see how any faithful Catholic can justify voting for any candidate who thinks Justice Ginsburg is right.
And the list of those who believe the dissent was correct apparently includes all the Democrat presidential wannabes.
Labels: Catholic Social Teaching, Constitutional Jurisprudence, Culture of Death, Democrats, Law, Natural Law, Social Justice, Supreme Court, Values Voters, Voting Your Values
posted by Pro Ecclesia 9:07 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I thought Harry Reid's comment was the funniest considering that he longed for Sandra Day O'Connor to help overturn a ban he voted for.
But of course now the Majority Leader saying such stupid things will not make the MSM.
I voted for the ban before I hoped the Supreme Court overturned it.
Even worse, what a Democrat win in 2008 will do is prompt Justices Ginsburg and Stevens to retire right away, secure in the knowledge that their seats will stay in the right hands. Overturning Roe and doing a lot of other good (and avoiding the planned bad, like the 2010 gay-marriage decision) will require unseating those two and replacing them with Scalito-like judges.
Justice Ginsburg has had major health problems and Justice Stevens will be 88 on Election Day, but both would be loath to give up their seats to a Republican president, though maybe a Dem Senate has given them some assurance. (After all, the difference between a present-unanimous confirmation of Scalia in 1986 and the outright rejection of Bork in 1987 was not conceivably the gap between the two men's qualifications.)
It's a dark day for the pro-infanticide crowd, and they know it.
What's worse, they have no choice but to reveal themselves as pro-infanticide. This ruling forces them to show their hands, when they'd have liked to go on courting values voters.
But no, a baby all-but-delivered is not part of their constitutency. And the assurance of the AMA that the procedure is never medically indicated is a mere annoyance to them.
Jeff,
Let's not forget all the spineless Republicans who voted for CFR and the equally spineless President who signed it (after saying all through the 2000 campaign that he opposed it and thought it was unconstitutional), all the while hoping the Supreme Court would strike it down as violating the 1st Amendment.
Post a Comment
<< Home