Thursday, July 28, 2005

Senator Leahy ought to resign

The latest from the battle for the soul of America.

from the Washington Times

Specifically, Mr. Leahy said, Judge Roberts will have a hard time being confirmed if he doesn't pledge to uphold Roe v. Wade, which declared abortion a constitutional right. "I don't see how somebody who said they didn't consider Roe v. Wade settled law ... I don't see how they get confirmed," he said. Mr. Leahy compared the primacy of Roe to Brown v. Board of Education, which outlawed racial segregation.

Normally you would expect this type of comment from some extreme leftist pro-abortion whacko who wants to get some cheap publicity. But to hear it from the lips of Senator Leahy is even extreme for him. He should apologize to the millions of Americans who find the killing of unborn children inconsistent with the history of this great land and who want to restore legal protection to the most precious and tiniest members of the human family, the unborn child.

Further Leahy insults the memory and the efforts of civil rights leaders who struggled for equal protection under law during the 20th Century. He insults the legacy that calls for all people to respected as human beings. Leahy further insults those women who have died or been mutilated on the abortion altar and who seek to prevent others from being so harmed.

Leahy's comments mark a new low in the politics if hate propagated by the pro-abortion extremists of the day. He is an embarrassment to the U.S. Senate. He should tender his resignation and return to the hills of Vermont where perhaps he may come to realize that all life is sacred and that innocent human life is to be protected by law.
Roe v. Wade was a mockery to all that is right about the law and its purpose. Until it is reversed and the law recognises the right to life of all human beings, our work as protectors of the Constitution will not be finished.

Removing Leahy from the Senate would advance the cause of human rights and remove a religious bigot from the hallowed halls of Congress.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Important background information

This is important and will help provide some very good points for your letters, emails and telephone calls to the Senate during the confirmation process. IT is a press release and backgrounder from the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C., issued on Tuesday, July 19, 2005.

For further information, call 202-626-8825, send e-mail to, or visit the NRLC website at


WASHINGTON -- Following today's announcement regarding the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to serve as associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, the following statement was issued by the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Washington, D.C.

“Liberal pressure groups will insist that Senate Democrats filibuster against Judge Roberts, unless he pledges in advance to vote against allowing elected legislators to place meaningful limits on abortion," said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "Millions of Americans will be watching to see if the Democratic senators bow to these demands."

In an interview conducted by Hugh Hewitt with Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, on April 11, 2005, the following exchange occurred: Hewitt: "Do you oppose and urge a filibuster for John Roberts?" Aron: "Yes, we would." See:

In 1990, as a Justice Department official under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Roberts wrote a brief in a pending Supreme Court case stating the Administration position "that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. . ."

After being nominated in 2001 by President George W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Judge Roberts was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 16-3, and confirmed by the Senate by unanimous consent on May 8, 2003.


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:

However, “The Supreme Court is clearly divided 5-4 on partial-birth abortion,” Johnson said. "The successor to Justice O'Connor will cast the deciding vote on whether the brutal partial-birth abortion method remains legal."

On July 8, in the case of Carhart v. Gonzales, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, signed into law by President Bush in 2003, is invalid because it conflicts with the 2000 Supreme Court decision in Stenberg v. Carhart. In that Supreme Court case, five justices struck down Nebraska's ban on partial-birth abortion. The effect of this Supreme Court ruling was to invalidate the laws enacted by more than half the states to ban partial-birth abortion, an abortion method in which a living premature infant is mostly delivered alive before being killed by puncturing her skull and removing her brain. O'Connor voted in the majority to strike down the bans on partial-birth abortion in that 5-4 ruling.

"Five years ago, five justices of the Supreme Court, including Justice O'Connor, ruled that Roe v. Wade allows an abortionist to perform a partial-birth abortion any time he sees a 'health' benefit, even if the woman and her unborn baby are entirely healthy," Johnson said. "The Eighth Circuit ruling in Carhart v. Gonzales was based entirely on the prior 5-4 Supreme Court decision." NRLC's complete statement on the Eight Circuit ruling is here: Moreover, the Supreme Court may also be divided 5 to 4 on the question of parental notification for abortion. The Court has already accepted for the fall term the case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit struck down New Hampshire's parental notification law. If the Supreme Court adopted the approach of the First Circuit ruling in this case, it could gut the parental notification laws of a number of other states as well. Based on past cases, it appears most likely that the current Court would split 4-4 on the case, with O'Connor (who has voted both for and against specific parental involvement laws in the past) as the deciding vote.


Some journalists and some pollsters continue to describe a fictional Roe v. Wade. For example, an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted by Hart/McInturff July 8-11, 2005, presented respondents with this misleading statement: "The Supreme Court's 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy." Likewise, pollsters with the Princeton Survey Research Associates International, polling for the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey on June 8-12, 2005, misinformed respondents, "In 1973 the Roe versus Wade decision established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy."

These wordings falsely suggest that the "right" created by the Supreme Court ruling applies fully only during "the first three months of pregnancy," a concept that the Court itself has forcefully repudiated on numerous occasions. For example, in the 1992 Casey ruling the Court reaffirmed Roe v. Wade, but the Court explicitly rejected any distinction whatever between the first and second trimester, stating, "We reject the trimester framework, which we do not consider to be part of the essential holding of Roe." In the most recent ruling on abortion, Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), the Court majority reaffirmed that restrictions on reasons for abortion or methods of abortion are impermissible up until "viability," which is near the end of the SECOND trimester (and, that states must permit abortion for "health" reasons even during the final months of pregnancy). Indeed, even though partial-birth abortions ARE NEVER performed in the first trimester, the Court majority ruled that partial-birth abortions are FULLY protected by Roe v. Wade.

Much of the public has been misled into believing that "overturning Roe v. Wade" means the same thing as "banning all abortions." This misinformation greatly distorts the public debate over the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade. Yet some news outlets continue to reinforce this distortion. For example, a page one story in USA TODAY on July 5 discussed whether the President "will name a justice who would vote to outlaw" abortion. Yet no Supreme Court justice has voted "to outlaw" abortion. Instead, Rehnquist and others have voted to allow democratically elected lawmakers to decide what degree of protection should be provided for unborn children. As the leading pro-abortion litigation group expressed it last year: "A Supreme Court decision overturning Roe would not by itself make abortion illegal in the United States. Instead, a reversal of Roe would remove federal constitutional protection for a woman’s right to choose and give the states the power to set abortion policy." ("What if Roe Fell?," Center for Reproductive Rights, September 2004)

For detailed information on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, see "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act: Misconceptions and Realities," here:

Arizona Right to Life is an affiliate of National Right to Life, the nation's largest grass roots pro-life organization, with 50 state affiliates and approximately 3,000 local affiliates nationwide. NRLC works through legislation and education to protect those threatened by abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Listen carefully

Those who want to see the president's nominee painted in a poor light will ignore or dismiss his exemplary legal credentials and try to associate him with the so called "bad guys" - you know - corporate lawyers, big business, polluters, etc. They will claim that he is out of touch with mainstream America and they will condemn Bush for not nominating someone who will "unite" the country.

Friends, the battle for this seat is over and Bush has won. I am not speaking out of turn when I say that this candidate is probably one of the three most qualified in the Washington, D.C. area. Just the idea that he has argued 39 cases before the U.S. SupremeCourt is impressive enough. Add to that his previous government experience and his years in private practice, and the country is going to get a jurist with excellent credentials.

Now credentials are not enough. It is the life lived that speaks of the soul. From what I have learned in the last 24 hours, that life has been one of which a parent would be pleased. In addition to his own involvement with such groups as the Federalist Society, his wife was active with Feminists for Life. They are raising two children, 5 and 4. One site suggested they had adopted them. This has not been confirmed. If so, such an act also speaks of a respect for life.

Pray for his family. The pressure and the efforts of the extreme left may be severe. Yet, God in His mercy may be giving our country yetone more opportunity to turn from evil and embrace the good. Life is good. All life must be respected. The law must respect the right to life of all persons, born or in the womb. All those in public office, elected or appointed, sworn to uphold the Constitution, need to understand that they have a duty to God and to their constituents to take this matter seriously.

A couple of other points: the Democrats will not filibuster. If their leaders are smart, they will pass on this nominee and plan on the next one. But they are not very smart, and will be pulled in by the extreme leftist groups to act as idiots. This will further alienate them from the heartland of America. The gang of 14 will hold and John Roberts will take his seat in time for arguments on the first Monday in October.

Instructions: Remain viligant. Call your senators and tell them you think the candidate is an excellent choice. Ask for fair and dignified hearings. be polite as always and remember to make plans to attend the September ARTL Conference.

Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Bush comes through

I am listening to Hugh Hewitt after speaking with the local news on the selection of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court and thanking George Bush for sticking to his principles and keeping his promise to the American people.
This nominee is on record as noting that Roe v. Wade is not supported by the Constitution. He has the credentials, the education and the experience. He will make an excellent addition to the bench.

The pro-life community was right to encourage the president to remember his promise to the people who supported his reelection. Now we must insure that the Senate will promptly confirm Judge Roberts so that he will be on the bench come October. REMAIN VIGILANT - but tonight you should say a prayer of thanksgiving.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Boxer perpetuates lie

Barbara Boxer (D -Ca) continued to perpetuate one of the oldest canards in the abortion controversey by claiming that if Roe v. Wade were overturned that 5000 womenwould die. In an article written by Justin Norton for the AP wires, Boxer claims that she will use the filibuster to block any pro life nominee who may be chosen by the president to replace retiring justice O'Connor.
Boxer is just one of those senators caughtup inher own rhetoric. She has no clue of hte history of the abortion tragedy and probably is so stupid that she does not know that Lawrence Lader and Dr. Bernard Nathanson, M.D. made up the abortion death statistics back in the late sixties. Nathanson told usyears later that they had to make up something and that the media was a willing accomplice to the lie.

Fortunately now we have the blogs to keep the press honest.

From the article: .

Seven Democrats and seven Republicans signed a pact this spring pledging not to filibuster judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances, and three judges whose nominations had been held up were soon confirmed.

The so-called compromise will soon have its first real test. What will be interesting is if those Democrats who are up for re-election are going to tie themselves to such extremists as Boxer and Kennedy.

From the article:

Boxer called a threat to legalized abortion an "extraordinary circumstance."
"It means a minimum of 5,000 women a year will die. So all options are on the table," she said.

Here is where the senator from California thinks that the American people are idiots.

Boxer called O'Connor a crucial moderate voice, saying the first female appointed to the high court was a strong backer of environmentalism and reproductive rights.

"She has been a powerful voice for moderation," Boxer said. "This is a philosophy her successor should embrace ... We cannot go back to the dark days. Roe must remain the law of the land."

Calling O'Connor a moderate in her judicial philosophy is extraordinary in its ignorance. "Moderate" is a political term and O'Connor was many times a "legislator" as a justice. Her decisions were highly personal to the events of the case. She ruled and decided cases as an inquisitor with unbridled power and in acting as the swing vote in so many cases was able to leave her personal imprint on the many decisions that she either authored or voted with the majority.

Years from now the legal historians will refer to this as the O'Connor legacy. A hodge podge of decisions - some that affirmed the role of the court as an interpreter of the law, others that were outright legislative enactments without the messy democratic process. Her affirmation of Roe in Casey contradicted her dissent in Akron when she said that Roe was on a collision course with itself. Apparently, as we found with Justice Kennedy, justices of the SupremeCourt can be lobbied and cajouled and compromised. Potomac fever does not just affect presidents and congressmen.

As for Boxer, she is almost irrelevant. But for the fact that she hails from California, she would be a tinny noise in the background But we can not ignore what the leftists want to do. We must show the president and the senate that the will of the people is for the court to interpret the constitution, to protect the basic rights of the individual ( including the right to life and property), and to hold back the power of government from those it would destroy. There is a reason for the Bill of Rights. It is to limit governmet and protect the people, even people in their mothers' wombs.

Friday, July 01, 2005

O'Connor retires - what next

The fireworks are set for Monday, the 4th of July, but Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement have set off the early rounds in what will be a very interesting confirmation process.

First off you all need to know who are the likely nominees to the seat. There are a number of highly qualified persons mentioned, although the Post does not mention any women and there are two women from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals who could get the nod if the president decides to replace O'Connor with a woman. But there is a lot of conversation that the president may go to his home state of Texas and tap Emilio Garza.There are many who would like to see Samuel Alito chosen, but there is the rumor that he may be held until Rehnquist steps down. Then then are Hugh Hewitt's favorites, J. Michael Luttig and John G. Roberts, both of whom are younger and would be long term appointments.

Of course the key issue will be abortion. The press will try to frame it in terms of suppressing the "right" but it is very important that we remind everyone that this so called "right" was created by the Supreme Court, upheld by the Court, defended by the Court, and forced upon the American people by the Court. The decision on abortion in 1973 was a classic example of the law telling people that what was once a crime is now permissible and the people then concurring with the decision to their detriment. For the last 32 plus years, this nation has been torn asunder by the cause of legal abortion. It is time for us to deal with reality. Abortion kills a human being. Abortion harms the mother of that child, physically, emotionally, and/or spiritually. Abortion attacks the very nature and purpose of the human person and denies our fundamental connectedness as human beings. It attacks the notion held almost constantly for 2000 years that God created all of us and we are his creation, a wonder to behold. Regardless of the fallen nature of the human person, there has been a deeply held desire by people to make this world a better place for their children. You cannot do that if you do not have children.

The struggle to restore the proper role of the Supreme Court will determine if we as a nation are going to reclaim our right to be a free people or if we are going to turn over control to an oligarchy made up of five persons in black judicial robes.

When the courts once again respect the basic rights inherent in the human person, the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to property, then our courts will once again be in the service to the people. It starts at the top. Only persons who believe in the rule of law, the sanctity of human life and the limited role of the state to interfere in people's lives should be considered. Let us find a justice with some common sense.