Roberts is a Sure Vote to Overturn Roe v Wade

[AndyTiedye]

# While serving as Deputy Solicitor General in the Bush Administration, Roberts argued for the gag rule in Rust v. Sullivan (1991), by which the federal government barred doctors working in family planning programs receiving federal funds from even discussing abortion options with patients. The brief also argued that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided – a question not even posed in the case. The Supreme Court upheld the gag rule on the narrower ground that the rule itself was not unconstitutional.

http://www.benchmarkcampaign.org/php/circuitCourtNomineeProfile.php?Cnom=09

[liberaliraqvet26]

1. we will see...

but im not that sure about this guy. those quotes were as a hired gun. he is not another scalia or thomas.

[jfalchion]

2. he is not another scalia or thomas.

Great.

Roll over...speak!

[Iris]

20. I hope this is true.

There was a bit in Salon that had him quoted as saying Roe was bad law but it is the law of the land and precedent needs to be followed.

Chipping away at Roe - yes, I can see that happening. But completely overturning it would probably take a lot of years and in the meantime a lot of folks might start getting mad at the religious right for trying to tell everyone else how to live.

[joemurphy]

3. Just because an attorney argues something on behalf of a

client in a case doesn't mean the attorney personally buys into the argument. Roberts is reported to have also said that he personally regarded Roe as the law of the land -- even if he didn't particularly like it.

[AndyTiedye]

5. It Was Gratuitous. Not Germaine to His Case. Unprofessional

[joemurphy]

7. As a lawyer you make all the arguments you think you can sell.

If I was arguing for such a client before Thomas and Scalia, I'd make that argument. I don't see it as unprofessional at all.

[sonicx]

6. You are ignoring the context

He had no choice but to answer that way. He was being confirmed for a lower court and had NO ability to change RvW. He is now going to the SC where he does have that ability.

[joemurphy]

8. Well, that's true. But I thought he said he was speaking

"personally" and not as a jurist in the quoted remark.

He could just as easily have said: "Personally, I disagree with Roe v. Wade, but as a judge, I'm bound to follow the Supreme Court's holding on the matter." Lower court jurists say things like this in their written opinions all the time.

[sonicx]

12. Maybe you are right, but i doubt it...

We'll find out soon enough, tho. :(

[iverglas]

13. "Personally, I believe ..."

How can someone -- in this case, someone who is a constitutional scholar -- "personally" believe something that is contrary to the constitution in question?

Reminds me of the maverick member of my own party who voted nay on the bill in Parliament to recognize same-sex marriage last month. Her "personal beliefs" were the reason, she said. Well, what personal beliefs ARE those? The belief that gay men and lesbians do not deserve the equal protection and benefit of the law that the Cdn Constitution guarantees to everyone in Canada? And it matters that you're a bigot ... why?

No one who claims "personal beliefs" as the basis for a position on a public policy issue can be allowed to get away with that. If someone believes that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided -- under the US Constitution -- s/he must be required to state WHY.

And I'd say the same for anyone who claims to "disagree" with that decision while allowing that it's the law of the land. What is the BASIS of that disagreement?

It's completely beyond me how someone can claim to have personal beliefs about a law (not about souls or morals or what's good to eat for breakfast) that are contrary to what a constitution says, or claim to disagree with how a constitution has been interpreted without offering the alternative interpretation.

[musical_soul]

22. True.

However, let that one case that might overturn Roe get on his desk.

Any idea on how to keep that from happening for years to come?

[beam me up scottie]

4. Notice how many of the

new guys are just chomping the bit to hand over the rights to our bodies ?

[bliss_eternal]

9. Yes, let's notice that...

:think:

[beam me up scottie]

10. self delete

we want the same thing, our rights.

[bliss_eternal]

11. Sorry, responded to the wrong thing...

Carry on...

[okcitykid]

14. Abortion Should Not Be Used As Birth Control

(I did want to make this a seperate post - but I was told I hadn't made enough posts - I wouldn't believe that such a place as this would be so conservative?)

Abortion – I don’t believe abortion should be used as a birth control method. If it is or if it ever has been, this is wrong, and this should be stopped. Not however to the point were a child is forced to be a mother against her wishes. Likewise, a young lady should not be forced to have an abortion. A woman has a right to decide whether or not she will be a mother in cases of rape, trickery or faulty birth control methods, while these things cannot always be proven, I believe we can trust her word on this without investigation.

Pregnancy should never be a punishment for having sex. In a more perfect world, all pregnancies are planned and all children are welcome, to make this a more perfect world, abortion should not be illegal. But greater efforts should be taken to ensure abortion does not become birth control. I think we can all agree on this.

[AndyTiedye]

15. I Have No Problem with Using a "Morning After" Pill as Birth Control

That still seems like the realm of pregancy prevention in any case.

I don't think anybody uses surgical abortion as birth control.
Who would want to?

[iverglas]

18. and what if they do?

I don't think anybody uses surgical abortion as birth control.
Who would want to?

Of course women use abortion as "birth control" all the time. That's exactly what abortion is, after all, completely regardless of what any individual woman's reason for terminating her pregnancy is.


I Have No Problem with Using a "Morning After" Pill as Birth Control

And morning-after pills have nothing to do with abortion, of course. The purpose for which they are taken is to prevent ovulation; no ovulation, no fertilization -- ergo they are "contraceptive".

Any stories you may have heard about these pills preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs are mere unproved theories.

If that does happen to be an effect of the morning-after pill -- that IF it fails to prevent ovulation, it MIGHT still prevent implantation -- then oh well, eh?

Various medications have the potential side effect of terminating pregnancies, i.e. after implantation. One hopes that we can't look forward to the day when all women must submit to pregnancy tests, and present proof of a month of celebacy, before filling a prescription for a condition completely unrelated to pregnancy. Because that's exactly what would come next if access to the morning-after pill were denied because it might be capable of preventing implantation and that effect might occur in some individual woman's case.

[beam me up scottie]

16. So how would you stop women from having abortions ?

Those that don't meet your strict rules of eligibility, that is.

[iverglas]

17. so what exactly is your problem?

And how might what your delicate sensibilities prompt you to think about abortion relate to the public policy issue of whether abortion should be criminalized, or access to abortion denied, on some basis having nothing to do with a woman's own perception of what is in her best interests?

Why would anyone care when or when not you happen to think an abortion is a good idea?

A woman has a right to decide whether or not she will be a mother in cases of rape, trickery or faulty birth control methods, while these things cannot always be proven, I believe we can trust her word on this without investigation.

A woman has the right to decide whether or not she will be a mother, period.

You got some reason for thinking otherwise?


Just curious, as always.

[sonicx]

19. Hello? abortion IS birth control!

It's the very definition of it. I've heard this silly talking point way to often.

What you are really saying is "Women who are "slutty" or "careless" with contraceptives need to have the kid to teach them a lesson."

[eleny]

21. Actually, it's none of your business

[SoutherLib]

23. Morning after pill?

Whatever became of the morning after pill in the U.S.??? Roberts is not the overturn vote the next one after 2006 elections will be. GWB is in moderate mode now if he wanted to he could get the Senate to a Vote immediately on return and ram Roberts down our throat he hasn't and will not, yet. I am kind of thinking Durbin(IL), Reid(Ut), and Byrd(S.C.)and Landrieu (LA) will lose their seats their is a pretty big backlash coming. GOP will likely gain more power in the Senate when these seats are up for election, not good for us.

[Skittles]

24. please define "US"

go on, this should be good

[AndyTiedye]

25. Wouldn't a Backlash be Against the Rethuglicans?

I am kind of thinking Durbin(IL), Reid(Ut), and Byrd(S.C.)and Landrieu (LA) will lose their seats their is a pretty big backlash coming. GOP will likely gain more power in the Senate when these seats are up for election, not good for us.

A "backlash" against the Dems? Why?

Why should the Rethuglicans pick up even more seats, unless through
even more widespread electoral fraud? The polls certainly don't
suggest that Bush**'s policies are popular with the public anymore.

[WildClarySage]

26. Uh, Byrd is WV not SC.

And his seat is not as up-for-grabs as you apparently think, as West Virginians are very loyal to the man whose influence has helped keep this state from utter destitution.