Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Complicity with Death – Janet Napolitano and the world of abortion

I often wonder why certain politicians seem overly fascinated with defending the status quo on the subject of abortion. Some have bought into the whole canard that somehow protecting the right to kill unborn children empowers women and gives them equality with men. Some want it legal so they can have it as a backup means to birth control. Others seem to reflect a deep seeded hatred for the role of women as child-bearers –that, somehow it isn’t fair that women should have to bear the burden. Then there are some who are so selfish so as to want it available in the oft chance that they will have need of it fro themselves or a family member. Finally there are those who want abortion as a tool of population control and as a means to curtail the growth of certain ethnic groups and races.

So why does someone like Janet Napolitano want abortion to remain legal?

If she studied her biology in high school, she knows the “fetus” is a human being from the moment of conception.

As a law student she should have studied the case law that provided support for the protection of the infant “in ventre sa mare” and the statutes passed by the various states protecting the life of the unborn child. She also would have read the dubious arguments attacking the humanity of the unborn child. Yet if she was like the many feminist law students I recall in my days at the university, she may have had a resentment toward the law and toward those men who wrote the laws that protected women and children. She may have been like so many women who knew but did not care that the child was human but only cared if the child was wanted. Perhaps she had a misplaced sympathy for those children who grew up in poverty or neglect, whose lives were not perfect as the American dream.

But Janet Napolitano embraced abortion throughout her legal and political career. She was a part of a liberal law firm and acted as one of the attorneys for Anita Hill when the pro-abortion and pro-homosexual liberals were trying to destroy Clarence Thomas. You will recall that liberals do not like people to leave the liberal plantation. And when Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, it was not enough that as an African-American, he had achieved so much. He was not one of them. He was a conservative. He was a Christian. He had to be destroyed. And so the left took out one of the most disgusting plays from the racial playbook and Janet Napolitano was in on the ground floor advising Anita Hill.

Thomas survived the “lynching” as he called it and now sits on the Supreme Court. Napolitano continued her law career until Clinton offered her an appointment as a U.S. Attorney in Arizona. A shrewd appointment, because it would give her the cover as a prosecutor and provide her with access to the criminal justices system and all the confidential information that includes.

When she was elected attorney general after defeating Tom McGovern in a close bitter dirty race, we all knew she was following the Bruce Babbitt advance track for government advancement. What many of us did not know was how badly she was going to wreck the attorney general’s office and permit a series of scandal-ridden events to detract from the important work being done by that agency.

I have not the time to address the CPS scandals and the problems in juvenile court. But I will recall that event seven years ago in the fall of 1999 when a 14 year-old girl and her unborn child were made pawns of a pro-abortion mindset that has infected the legal system and this country.

Today an event such as this one probably would not even make the Arizona Republic. After all the paper continues to run interference for Janet and her minions. But in 1999 they saw a story and actually wrote about it. Here is what happened.

A 14 year-old ward of the court was pregnant. She had been in the custody of CPS since the age of five (another failure of our state foster case and adoption system). She had been a run away. In fact she used to run away a lot according to the state. She was pregnant. The state wanted her to have an abortion. She did not want an abortion according to her relatives. Then she was picked up again and now she was over 20 weeks along. The authorities wanted her to disclose the father. She refused, alternating stories between being in love with him and having been assaulted. He court appointed lawyer them files a motion to allow her to go out of state to have a later term abortion. The state does not object. The state is represented by the attorney general’s office. Janet is the attorney general. The juvenile court judge William Sergeant grants the motion and the state begins to make arrangements to transport her to California for this later term abortion (makes you wonder how many other abortions were approved by the juvenile court). At this point someone balks. Not a judge, not a lawyer, not a caseworker at DES. No the person who balks is someone involved in the process. An unknown who makes something very wrong known to the world – and who created a national firestorm.

The public outcry over the idea of sending someone out of state to kill her child on the state’s dime was too much - even for the Arizona Republic. They reported the story. The public reaction was loud and clear. They opposed it. People offered to adopt the child. Agencies offered to take her in through and after the pregnancy. One politician offered her a scholarship to college if she would reconsider. But we will never know if she ever knew of the offers of aid. Because at first Janet’s office refused to even ask the judge to reconsider. When the pressure did not subside, the AG’s office filed a motion to reconsider. After a few days the judge ruled again in favor of killing the child. The AG’s office said it was over. The public pressure soon even found its way to the governor’s office. After at first ignoring it, Governor Hull told Napolitano that if she did not appeal the ruling, the governor would appoint special counsel. Napolitano relented and filed an appeal. The case was argued before Appellate court judge Michael Ryan who reversed the lower court ruling and sent the case back with a mandate to answer some serious questions. It looked like the child’s life would be spared.

But in a move that defied the law, the rules of court, the mandate issued by Judge Ryan, and all common sense, the state attorney general Janet Napolitano, agreed to the unprecedented request to argue an appeal of Judge Ryan’s ruling BY TELEPHONE on a SUNDAY morning WITHOUT any BRIEFS or WRITTEN ARGUMENTS or RECORD for the Supreme Court to review. That the Court agreed to even take it was unbelievable. But that Janet agreed to allow it to happen and did not object but went out of her way to accommodate the court appointed lawyer who was pushing for the abortion, violated her duty to the people. All she had to do was object to any expedited appeal. All she had to do was argue that the rules had to be followed. All she had to do was argue that Judge Ryan’s order s were reasonable. She could have demanded briefs be filed and an in person argument be made before the court. All the mother and baby needed was time.

You see the girl by this time was 28 weeks pregnant. No one in California would do the abortion now. Even the notorious Planned Parenthood would not do a late term abortion. The only abortionist in the country who would be delighted to kill the baby for a huge fee was an abortionist known as George Tiller. His office is in Wichita Kansas. Now Planned Parenthood was helping Janet behind the scenes. Their employees arranged for the flight to Kansas. They told the AG that they had to have her on the plane by Sunday because the abortion is a three-day procedure. Janet had to look like she was fighting to protect the girl and the baby and then lose at the Arizona State Supreme Court. Then everyone could be upset at the State Supreme Court.

So on a Sunday morning when most people were getting up for church, the State justices were hearing by telephone without any record, with a directive to get them an answer in an hour, a case about a 14 year old ward of the court and whether the lower court judge’s ruling should be upheld as within his discretion or whether the appeals court judge was correct to reverse the trial court.

One additional wrinkle: one of the justices was Stanley Feldman. Justice Feldman was the lawyer for Planned Parenthood when he was in private practice. He argued for the reversal of Arizona’s laws criminalizing abortion. To his credit and consistent with the canons of judicial conduct, he offered to recuse himself, that is, to not hear the case and get a replacement. Did Janet accept this offer? Did Janet realize that he would rule against the state? Did Janet want to lose so the baby would die?

The AG did nothing to remove Feldman from the case. They did not accept his offer to recuse himself.

The court ruled 3-2 against the state, reversed the appellate court ruling and returned it to the juvenile judge. The girl was on a plane that same day. Within the next three days she would undergo an abortion and her baby would be dead.

Janet meanwhile launched an investigation as to how this information became public. With a vengeance she sought to uncover the hero who refused to go quietly into that good night. “A climate of fear,” was how one DES employee referred to her reign. She knew that she could not have something like this go public again.

As I recall these events, I am amazed at the “blood lust” and how it was fueled by the pro-abortion elements in the city. Former abortionist and current convicted felon Brian Finkel lost no time getting his personage on the news and in the papers as he attacked pro-lifers who wanted to save the mother and her baby. The attitude by so many in the legal system was utter hatred at being exposed to the public scrutiny. Even after the baby was killed the Republic, never a friend to the unborn, called for an investigation to root out the leaks.

Years later, one sees the same anger and hatred toward pro-lifers and those who work to offer alternatives to abortion. Why?

Why is it so hard to love a child?

Why does that child or any child pose such a threat to these people that they want the children dead?

And how is it that these same people claim to care about the state, or the nation, and yet can without any pangs of conscience embrace the killing of children?

There were many lives affected by that one child who lived only briefly before being legally executed with the sanction of the state. His or her life offered many people many choices. These choices will ring through eternity. You too have a choice. On November 7, 2006, election-day, you can choose those who support and want to protect all innocent human life or you can choose to back those who view abortion as a means to solving unplanned problems permanently. And while you are thinking about it, remember this, that little child who was killed in that Wichita abortion clinic, would be six years old and sitting in a first grade class.

But because of Janet Napolitano, that child is dead.

1 Comments:

At 12:13 AM, Anonymous John K. Walker said...

If you please, a couple of additional points to your exposition on our state’s 1999 equivalent (arguably, even worse) to last year’s Terri Schiavo atrocity; please edit out anything potentially libelous (although everyone mentioned is a public figure / politician as defined by their late hero, Roe v. Wade svengali Justice William Brennan):

Back while this war crime was occurring, former Attorney General Grant Woods was hosting a call-in radio show every weekday on KFYI. Not being familiar at the time with Arizona politicians, I admit that I naively bought his claim to only be idealistically advising his successor Napolitano (in an allegedly non-political, “aw shucks, I just want good government” manner) on simply following Arizona law and heeding Hull’s reluctant (remember that she underwent the common Ted Kennedy / Mario Cuomo / Dick Durbin “growth” process of going from being a pro-life legislator to becoming a “pro-choice” appointed Governor) threat to go around the AG’s office in appealing the lower court’s Mengelesque order. This allowed for perpetrating and perpetuating the myth that it was only an “independent-minded” state judiciary, not Napolitano herself, behind this sanctioned infanticide.

Tragically, in an apparent attempt to spread his appeal in the 2002 Governor’s race, pro-life conservative Matt Salmon featured Woods as his campaign co-chair. Beyond the obvious fact that following Woods’ presumed advice to “move to the center” (by alienating his own base) arguably cost Salmon the election, I assume that the former Congressman (now state Republican chairman) would be at least “disappointed” at his former advisor’s complete reversal in now endorsing his former rival for re-election! (Read Woods’ moving testimonial on Napolitano’s campaign website, if you desire nausea for some reason….)

And of course, it was Justice Stanley Feldman who also wrote the ASSC’s majority SIMAT ruling in 2002 (another case of AG Napolitano’s office violating their oath in not requiring the former counsel for Planned Parenthood’s recusal) that it is so imperative be overridden if this state is ever to come out of its entrenched extra-legal abortion regime.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home