The confirmation hearings for prospective U.S. Supreme Court justice Samuel alito have shown the pro-abortion lobby for what it is; a group that values abortion above all else.
It is not enough for the pro-abortion lobbyists that alito is a magnificent Constitutional scholar, an independent thinker, and a judge of remarkable temperament. What they want is a pro-abortion puppet who will uphold the travesty of Roe v. Wade; no matter what the consequences.
Consider this statement from the president of the pro-abortion group NaRaL, Nancy Keenan, as reported by LifeNews.com: Under the first round of questions from Senator Specter, Samuel alito did not refute his record of opposition to Roe v. Wade.
What does that matter? Isnt a judge; particularly a judge on the highest court of the land; supposed to be fair and impartial? Would it really be wise for him to go on the record in support of Roe, when such support could imply a blanket endorsement of all laws that favor abortion? Dont we want judges who are committed to the law, rather than to ideology?
Keenan added, He did not state whether he believes that the right to privacy includes a womans right to choose. He did acknowledge that his 1985 statement, which said he believes legally that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion, was accurate.
When alito made the 1985 statement, he was acting in the capacity of a lawyer, not as a judge. In other words, he was defending a particular position, as all lawyers do. and certainly there are many other lawyers who have said that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion. How could it? Our founding fathers believed firmly in the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No where in the Constitution can you find a line defending abortion. It would have gone against the very principles our nation was founded upon.
Keenan went on to claim that alito was stealing a page from Clarence Thomas playbook. Thomas said the constitution included a right to privacy, then he voted to overturn Roe v. Wade one year later, Keenan said. While some scholars disagree as to whether there is a constitutional right to privacy to begin with, it seems entirely possible that privacy rights do not translate into abortion rights. You have a right to protect your home and property against the prying eyes of the government; unless suspected criminal activity is involved. However, that does not give you the right to end the life of an unborn child. an abortion privacy right presupposes that the unborn baby is part of a womans body, rather than a distinct entity with his or her own mind, body, and soul. No one has the right to kill in private; why should there be a right to abort on demand?
and what about the other members of the pro-abortion contingent? LifeNews.com reports that the american Civil Liberties Union; which believes in liberties for convicted killers but not innocent unborn babies; opposes the alito nomination. While this might not surprise conservatives, it is actually only the third time in the organizations 86-year history that it has come out against a Supreme Court nominee.
aCLU Director anthony Romero has said, Unfortunately, Judge alitos record shows a willingness to support government actions that abridge individual freedoms. Is this really true? Or is the aCLU simply saying that alito will not march lockstep with pro-abortion forces in defending Roe v. Wade to the death?
Planned Parenthood, the nations largest abortion operation, also opposes the alito nomination. Why would a group that is ostensibly concerned with family planning care about alito being on the court? The only possible explanation is that Planned Parenthood believes that alitos votes on the court would somehow cut into their abortion business. Therefore, the organizations opposition to alito is purely on mercenary grounds.
It is high time that NaRaL, the aCLU, and Planned Parenthood stop their lobbying campaigns for the Supreme Court. They are concerned only with their self-interest; not the integrity of the Constitution.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement