Monday, October 17, 2005

Texas Judges Say Miers Would Overturn Roe v Wade

Two weeks after President Bush nominated Texas crony and White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, the controversy rages on, especially with what allegedly took place the day she was nominated, Oct. 3, during a teleconference between the heads of over a dozen high-profile religious conservative groups and two members of the Texas judiciary who stated she'd move to overturn Roe v. Wade if confirmed. The participants included the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister, and Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge.

Much prior focus has been on another call, between Dobson and Karl Rove, in which Dobson was allegedly "assured" by Rove of Miers' anti-abortion position. But new information points to the Oct. 3 teleconference as being the real smoking gun.

The call was to assure the group that Miers is solidly pro-life. As reported today by John Fund in the Wall Street Journal, who has obtained notes that were taken during the conference call, Dobson was asked to introduce Justice Hecht and Judge Kinkeade, informing the group that "Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think." Then, an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?" "Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade. "I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

If this is true, if any of the participants of the call are asked to testify before the Judiciary committee, and if it is proven that "assurances" were given by Miers, Rove and/or another Bush official, it could spell even further trouble for an already embarrassed and embattled Bush administration.

As for the Texas judges, Kinkeade declined comment and Hecht repeated his public comments that Miers is pro-life but said he could not remember if he told the group that she'd overturn Roe. Andy


Anonymous said...

I know it's probably mean to comment on someone's personal appearance, but Harriet Miers bears a distinct resemblance to Emperor Palpatine, don't you think? Just an observation...

Gouda said...

I am pro-life. But I am also pro-choice. Expressing my belief that life is sacred does not reveal my concurrent belief that a woman has a right to make choices about her body.

Harriet Miers may be labeled as pro-life until the cows come home. But this doesn't make a statement on how she would vote with issues of privacy, under which abortion falls.

I think a better line of questioning for her in the hearings is not whether or not she believes in the sanctity of life (who doesn't?), but whether she would rule to protect a woman's privacy.

Anonymous said...

I have always felt that things would be so much less contentious if pro-life people would just decide for themselves that abortion is wrong and not try to make that decision for other people.

For example, unless I were in extreme circumstances (i.e, life-threatening condition, rape), I would personally not choose to have an abortion. But that doesn't make me feel qualified to make that decision for anyone else. I just pray that I never have to be in that person's shoes.

Of course, society has the right to determine that certain actions are always crimes, no matter how you try to justify it. But this is such an ambiguous issue, and last I checked, the majority of Americans believe that women have the right to choose in this instance, why not just live and let live? If you don't support abortion, then don't have one!

Gouda said...

Well said, karen!

Anonymous said...

Thanks Karen, it couldn't have been said better. How in the world can a person - like Harriet Miers - make a sweeping judgement call on something as personal as the right to an abortion? To me, the matter has been decided and ruled upon... a long time ago. If you don't like abortion then don't have one. I once said to a right to lifer who was blocking the entrance to my doctor's office... "Sign a contract that says you will adopt, without state or federal assistance, the next five adoptable kids, regardless of ethnicity, physical and mental impairment. Then you will be genuinely supporting the right to life. The protester had no reply. Perhaps my words took reality to a new level for that person that day...

Anonymous said...

AND, I would just like to add while restraining myself from screaming...if you want to cut down on abortions, why throw up all this red tape when it comes to getting quality birth control?

More birth control = less abortions.

So, if you're a pharmacist, don't get in the way of my doctor and me--fill my damn prescription as you were hired to do.

If I've just been raped, and you're counseling me, treating me, whatever, remind me about emergency contraception.

In fact, I don't even need to be victimized to deserve quality birth control. Women who don't want to get pregnant in any situation should be allowed access to contraception to prevent unwanted conception and thus prevent abortion.

But I think a lot of pro-lifers would rather prevent good sex than abortion. Thus their insistance that unmarried sexually active people be "punished" with children (hardly a healthy way to look at it) and that married women be saddled with as many children as they can create.