Judge Andrew Napolitano's "Verdict" Wrong on Many Counts
I can refer to my many postings on this site that explain John McCain's position on the life issues. He has for 25 years had a strong consistent pro-life voting record. In the early days of his political career he supported our efforts to pass a Human Life Amendment. He has always called Roe v. Wade a terrible decision that needed to be reversed. He has promised to select judges who would respect the Constitution and indicated in the last debate that anyone who respected the Constitution would support life. Now Judge Andrew Napolitano of the Fox News Channel weighs in on his segment The Verdict and while clearly understanding that Barack Obama is anti-life and pro-abortion, fails to articulate McCain's position and thus gets it wrong. In fact Napolitano gets it so wrong that he needs to take a refresher course on what the pro-life movement's opposition to Roe has meant for the last thirty five years.Lets start with what he gets right. He correctly identifies Obama's extremism. He notes all of the things identified in previous postings o9n this site. He should have included the historical fact that Roe wiped out all state laws proscribing abortion. Prior to Roe, the state laws addressed crimes against persons. In a normal situation that would be the case if Roe was reversed. However simply because the Supreme Court reverses Roe does not mean that the court would not address the issue of when a child gets human rights. As McCain stated at the Saddleback interview, he believes that the child's human rights begin at conception. Given the advances in medical science, the Supreme Court could answer the question raised in Roe and never decided. The court could easily conclude that the unborn child's right to life is protected by the 5th and 14th amendment to the Constitution. John McCain would support that decision. He would realize that the federal question of equal protection would trump a state's rights approach. But at the same time, he and many other pro-life advocates, would take reversal and return to the states as the next place to battle in defense of life. Since the HLA is not a practicality, what else is he to say on this question. One takes whatever beachhead one can gt and then moves from there.
So Judge Napolitano totally missed in his analysis and failed to address this aspect of the discussion. Wanting to reverse Roe in infinitely better than keeping /Roe as the law of the land forced upon the country by seven non-elected judges in 1973.
Napolitano would better serve the cause of unborn children by reminding the public that a Supreme Court picked by Obama would not only insure that abortion remains legal but also could spell the end of marriage and the family as we know it.
Napolitano also failed to address Obama's desire to pass the Freedom of Choice Act.
He forgot to mention that Obama wants to repeal the Hyde Amendment so he can use tax dollars to pay for abortions.
The bottom line is that one can look to real reputable pro-life leaders and organizations to understand that there is one candidate who will protect life and seek to end abortion - that man is John McCain.
posted by Jakubczyk on Life @ 6:42 PM
1 Comments:
Sir:
Although there is no doubt as to the certain and lethal consequences for future millions (billions?) of pre-birth children of an Obama-dominated US Supreme Court (which is precisely why I am so incensed at the cowardly lack of leadership of the US Catholic Church hierarchy as to the excommunicable claims and actions of pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians and commentators; the Church's de facto duplicity making any real progress impossible, even within the practicing Catholic population), both for accuracy's sake and for future planning (if there even is a viable right-to-life movement by then) two additional points must be raised:
1) Unfortunately, even Scalia (explicitly in his "60 Minutes" interview last year) and (reportedly) Thomas, although rightly pointing out the non-existent constitutional basis of ROE/DOE/CASEY, have declared that the rights amendments you mention do NOT apply to pre-born babies (since these two Justices are staunch "originalists" and this was not the case when either the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 or the 14th Amendment passed after the Civil War), but only to "walking-around people" (Scalia's own term).
2) Until and unless the national political leadership adopts what are proven effective strategies (by other, seemingly weaker lobbying groups) for leveraging whatever actual voter clout they constantly claim to possess -- as opposed to their pathetic, now decades-old Washington DC "cocktail party" approach -- anyone who genuinely cares about this holocaust may as well concede the "pro-'choice'" human rights legal and political argument and just work on counseling and the like. Case-in-point: NARAL, PPFA, etc. have no qualms about making their politicians and the Democratic Party apply a pro-ROE litmus test to judicial nominees, but our side seems to find this distasteful somehow, despite extending the electoral benefit to every faux "pro-life" office-holder. (Pro-life "stalwart" Orrin Hatch voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg!!! -- need anymore be said?)
Unless some very fundamental changes occur, this debate, though certainly no progress, will continue for eternity, albeit within a smaller and smaller circle of interested citizens. So when will enough be enough?
John K. Walker
Phoenix
Post a Comment
<< Home