Friday, November 16, 2007

Litmus Test: Democrat Candidates Demand Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justices

(Hat tip:

Las Vegas, NV ( -- During the Democratic presidential debate last night in Nevada, all the leading candidates for the party's nomination said they would demand that any appointee to the Supreme Court support abortion. They each said they would only send the Senate nominees who want to uphold the Roe v. Wade decision.

Wolf Blitzer asked pro-abortion New York Sen. Hillary Clinton if "any nominee you name to the Supreme Court would have to share your view on abortion?"

Clinton said they would definitely "have to share my view about privacy" -- a term abortion advocates use to refer to abortion.

"Privacy, in my opinion, is embedded in our Constitution," Clinton added, "So it would be absolutely critical."

With Clinton getting away from the buzzword of abortion, Blitzer brought her back to the direct question, asking, "So the answer is yes?"

"Yes, the answer is yes," Clinton confirmed.

Sen. Barack Obama, an Illinois lawmaker and former law professor, confirmed he would only back pro-abortion Supreme Court picks as well.

"I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy," he said.

John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, was more clear in his answer during the debate.

"I would insist that they recognize the right to privacy and recognize Roe v. Wade as settled law," he said of any Supreme Court nominees.

The other Democratic presidential candidates considered less likely to wind up with the party's nomination all endorsed pro-abortion judicial picks as well.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson
[ED.: Catholic], considered by many to be a likely vice-presidential pick, repeated earlier comments that he would only select pro-abortion judges.

"I would also ask my nominee -- this is what I would ask: Number one, do you believe Roe versus Wade is settled law? Number two, do you support the right to privacy?" he said. "If the answer is no to those questions that basically say is it settled law or not -- you want to call it a litmus test, fine -- those would be the judges that I would appoint for the Supreme Court."

Dennis Kucinich
[ED.: Catholic], an Ohio congressman who was formerly pro-life, said abortion would definitely be a litmus test in any high court selection.

"A Kucinich appointment to the Supreme Court would have a litmus test on abortion. It's a -- it's a question of a woman's right to choose and a right to privacy," he said.

Senator Joe Biden
[ED.: Catholic], a pro-abortion Delaware lawmaker, agreed.

"I would not appoint anyone who did not understand that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment and the Liberty Clause of the 14th Amendment provided a right to privacy ... which means they would support Roe v. Wade," he said.

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)
My Comments:
I agree with Cardinal O'Malley. I'm not sure how any Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for any of these people. That many will nevertheless do so "borders on scandal".

What these Democrat candidates are advocating - supporting only those judges who will ensure that abortion-on-demand, with little or no restrictions throughout all 9 months of pregnancy, remains the law of the land - is pure, unadulterated evil. And their positions on this issue are so well-known, and are so much a part of what the modern Democrat Party stands for, that I'm not sure how voting for any of them could not be seen as formal cooperation with intrinsic evil.

Just my take on why I won't vote for any of them. Which isn't to say I've found a Republican I can support either, now that Brownback is out of the race.

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Cardinal O'Malley: Catholics Backing Pro-Abortion Democrats "Borders on Scandal"

John Allen Interviews Archbishop Chaput Regarding Catholic Voting Guides

Labels: , , , , ,


At 11/16/2007 2:54 PM, Blogger Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

If this only "borders" on scandal, one really wonders just what would actually constitute scandal.

Hey, I'm all for privacy, too. But if a right to privacy enables a woman to murder her children, why won't it enable me to murder my ex-wife?

At 11/16/2007 9:14 PM, Anonymous BillyHW said...

But what about the minimum wage, and lumber tariffs, and corn subsidies?!!!

There are other issues you know.

At 11/17/2007 1:11 AM, Blogger Christopher said...

But what about the minimum wage, and lumber tariffs, and corn subsidies?!!!

you're forgetting GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


At 11/17/2007 9:58 PM, Blogger Thos said...

Sen. Biden's understanding of the legal underpinnings of Roe is way off. Too bad. Maybe then he'd realize that as far as a litmus test, his real requirement is that his picks accept Harry Blackmun's garbled Roe illogic (re-garbled by O'Connor in her Casey decision).

Speaking of the Casey decision, even the Supreme Court seems to realize that "Privacy" was just a facade. Now it's the burden on a mother of bearing a child weighed against the state's interest in what O'Connor called both the "life of the fetus that may become a child [barring that life's being aborted]" and "life of the unborn".

But anyway, these candidates continue the smoke & mirrors line of "privacy". We don't have privacy rights that allow us to murder an unwanted spouse. Everyone knows the weighing of interests (which requires deciding on a value of the human fetus) is the real issue here, not privacy.

These candidates are off, but since this issue is settled within each party, there's no room for debate and calling people to use clear and accurate language.

Peace in Christ,


Post a Comment

<< Home

hit counter for blogger