Miers is not pro-life

tuopaolo · #1 Oct 7, '05, 8:12 am

I've changed my mind about her. She is not a good choice. Apparently she is not even pro-life according to her own friend's words:

Quote:

After her conversion, she thought more about things in a serious way. She realized life begins at conception. Taking a life after conception was serious business, and therefore you could not do it without a good reason

http://www.washtimes.com/functions/p...5-122400-8922r

Now he may describe her as "pro-life" but what he says here about her views demonstrates that she is not pro-life for being pro-life means you believe there is NEVER a "good reason" to take an innocent life of an unborn person.

Brad · #2 Oct 7, '05, 8:51 am

I don't think that can be determined by a secondhand account of a realization that was just come to some 20+ years ago.

Most people I know that "converted" to pro-life did so in stages. Not too many people I know go backwards.

Petertherock · #3 Oct 7, '05, 9:29 am

A good reason would be to save the life of the mother. Some may disagree but I don't. It is because of this reason that people look at pro life people as "whakos." If you believe the mother should have to die to give an unborn baby a 5% chance of surviving you are a whacko.

caroljm36 · #4 Oct 7, '05, 9:42 am

She actually has a pretty good prolife track record...check this out from President Aristotle blog..

4. Miers' paper trail: abortion
4.1: In 1989, she contributed $150 to Texans for Life. 95% of those who contribute to pro-life groups seek to reverse Roe v. Wade; there's no reason to think Miers is an exception.
4.2: When she ran for Dallas City Council, she openly identified herself as pro-life. Her campaign manager has since called her "on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement".
4.3: She became head of the Texas Bar in 1992-93, and used her position to lobby against the ABA's pro-abortion positions. She continued this lobbying late into the decade. There is no reason to doubt that this was powerfully rooted in her own pro-life political views.
4.4: She gave money to Bentsen and Gore in 1987/88 when she was still a conservative Democrat. Since 1990 she has made 13-14 political donations, and these donations have gone ONLY to 100% pro-life candidates.
4.5: In 2000 she gave money to Donald Stenberg, the Nebraska attorney general who defended Nebraska's partial birth abortion law before the Supreme Court. As one blogger put it: “I didn’t know she had given to Sternberg [sic]. The only people who I know from around here who did that were the real activists.” Exactly.
4.6: Summary: this is the most extensive pro-life record of any nominee to the Supreme Court in recent years. Even Scalia and Thomas, who both rejected Roe, never had a record like that. Roberts certainly never did. Her on-record pro-life convictions are clear and undeniable.

Is this a guarantee that Miers will vote to overturn Roe? No, there can be no guarantees on that. It is highly probable however. And it is close to a guarantee that she will vote to reverse Stenberg (a 5-4 decision with O'Connor in the majority).

....
6. The Miers' paper trail: homosexuality.
From NRO:
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers went on record favoring equal civil rights for gays when she ran for Dallas City Council, and she said the city had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services.

But Miers opposed repeal of the Texas sodomy statute _ a law later overturned by the court on which she will sit if confirmed _ in a survey she filled out for a gay-rights group during her successful 1989 campaign.

O'Connor, of course, struck down the Texas sodomy law as Supreme Court justice. Miers was one of the supporters of that law. It is not likely that Miers would have supported it if she agreed with O'Connor that it was contrary to the constitution.

Brad · #5 Oct 7, '05, 10:07 am

This is far too confusing of late.

I think there is so much mininformation from improperly motivated individuals.

Remember, Satan would like nothing more that to have the conservatives aligned against each other instead of aligned against the moral relativistic- anything goes accept Christianity - left.

2shelbys · #6 Oct 7, '05, 10:14 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by caroljm36

She actually has a pretty good prolife track record...check this out from President Aristotle blog..

4. Miers' paper trail: abortion
4.1: In 1989, she contributed $150 to Texans for Life. 95% of those who contribute to pro-life groups seek to reverse Roe v. Wade; there's no reason to think Miers is an exception.
4.2: When she ran for Dallas City Council, she openly identified herself as pro-life. Her campaign manager has since called her "on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement".
4.3: She became head of the Texas Bar in 1992-93, and used her position to lobby against the ABA's pro-abortion positions. She continued this lobbying late into the decade. There is no reason to doubt that this was powerfully rooted in her own pro-life political views.
4.4: She gave money to Bentsen and Gore in 1987/88 when she was still a conservative Democrat. Since 1990 she has made 13-14 political donations, and these donations have gone ONLY to 100% pro-life candidates.
4.5: In 2000 she gave money to Donald Stenberg, the Nebraska attorney general who defended Nebraska's partial birth abortion law before the Supreme Court. As one blogger put it: “I didn’t know she had given to Sternberg [sic]. The only people who I know from around here who did that were the real activists.” Exactly.
4.6: Summary: this is the most extensive pro-life record of any nominee to the Supreme Court in recent years. Even Scalia and Thomas, who both rejected Roe, never had a record like that. Roberts certainly never did. Her on-record pro-life convictions are clear and undeniable.

Is this a guarantee that Miers will vote to overturn Roe? No, there can be no guarantees on that. It is highly probable however. And it is close to a guarantee that she will vote to reverse Stenberg (a 5-4 decision with O'Connor in the majority).

....
6. The Miers' paper trail: homosexuality.
From NRO:
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers went on record favoring equal civil rights for gays when she ran for Dallas City Council, and she said the city had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services.

But Miers opposed repeal of the Texas sodomy statute _ a law later overturned by the court on which she will sit if confirmed _ in a survey she filled out for a gay-rights group during her successful 1989 campaign.

O'Connor, of course, struck down the Texas sodomy law as Supreme Court justice. Miers was one of the supporters of that law. It is not likely that Miers would have supported it if she agreed with O'Connor that it was contrary to the constitution.

Excellent post!

bones_IV · #7 Oct 10, '05, 7:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by caroljm36

She actually has a pretty good prolife track record...check this out from President Aristotle blog..

4. Miers' paper trail: abortion
4.1: In 1989, she contributed $150 to Texans for Life. 95% of those who contribute to pro-life groups seek to reverse Roe v. Wade; there's no reason to think Miers is an exception.
4.2: When she ran for Dallas City Council, she openly identified herself as pro-life. Her campaign manager has since called her "on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement".
4.3: She became head of the Texas Bar in 1992-93, and used her position to lobby against the ABA's pro-abortion positions. She continued this lobbying late into the decade. There is no reason to doubt that this was powerfully rooted in her own pro-life political views.
4.4: She gave money to Bentsen and Gore in 1987/88 when she was still a conservative Democrat. Since 1990 she has made 13-14 political donations, and these donations have gone ONLY to 100% pro-life candidates.
4.5: In 2000 she gave money to Donald Stenberg, the Nebraska attorney general who defended Nebraska's partial birth abortion law before the Supreme Court. As one blogger put it: “I didn’t know she had given to Sternberg [sic]. The only people who I know from around here who did that were the real activists.” Exactly.
4.6: Summary: this is the most extensive pro-life record of any nominee to the Supreme Court in recent years. Even Scalia and Thomas, who both rejected Roe, never had a record like that. Roberts certainly never did. Her on-record pro-life convictions are clear and undeniable.

Is this a guarantee that Miers will vote to overturn Roe? No, there can be no guarantees on that. It is highly probable however. And it is close to a guarantee that she will vote to reverse Stenberg (a 5-4 decision with O'Connor in the majority).

....
6. The Miers' paper trail: homosexuality.
From NRO:
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers went on record favoring equal civil rights for gays when she ran for Dallas City Council, and she said the city had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services.

But Miers opposed repeal of the Texas sodomy statute _ a law later overturned by the court on which she will sit if confirmed _ in a survey she filled out for a gay-rights group during her successful 1989 campaign.

O'Connor, of course, struck down the Texas sodomy law as Supreme Court justice. Miers was one of the supporters of that law. It is not likely that Miers would have supported it if she agreed with O'Connor that it was contrary to the constitution.

In the words of Judie Brown

Judie Brown "As it stands today, with what I know from people who have known her, I remain skeptical."

Why you ask? We get what we ask for. Bush claimed himself to be pro-life and people believed him. Thus his nomination of Miers is his true view of abortion. Therefore he payed lipservice to conservative christain groups.

zootjeff · #8 Oct 13, '05, 8:15 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuopaolo

Now he may describe her as "pro-life" but what he says here about her views demonstrates that she is not pro-life for being pro-life means you believe there is NEVER a "good reason" to take an innocent life of an unborn person.

Would you accept bad reasons? Like if the baby is growing in the falopian tube and you either have an abortion or die? I guess the non-abortion policy will reinforce natural selection in that case.

Or if the baby is going to miscarriage because it's brain is dead but the heart is still beating and part of it is rotting and causing bleeding. Then thats another bad reason to take the life. Again, the natural selection will weed you out if you don't

I think that is the reason abortion is legal. All the truly pro-lifers have died from complications from refusing abortions....

Barbara Ann · #9 Oct 13, '05, 10:04 pm

[quote=tuopaolo]I've changed my mind about her. She is not a good choice. Apparently she is not even pro-life according to her own friend's words:

http://www.washtimes.com/functions/p...5-122400-8922r

Now he may describe her as "pro-life" but what he says here about her views demonstrates that she is not pro-life for being pro-life means you believe there is NEVER a "good reason" to take an innocent life of an unborn person.

[/QUOTE

The statements in the article are extremely vague and political. "Good reason" can be interpeted as risk to the mother, rape and incest, the child has a chance of being less than perfect to we can't afford to support a child and our four cars. Don't get me wrong I believe that there is no good reason for abortion. I have had to put those beliefs. I was offered an abortion of my first child. I refused. We both almost died. My instructions to the doctor were save my child, if you can't save my child don't bother to save me. But what I am saying here is that that statement is very vague. I also think actions speak louder than words. I like what has been posted about her donations to pro-life groups. But I am skeptical of everyone.

Traditional Ang · #10 Oct 14, '05, 11:52 pm

[quote=Barbara Ann]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tuopaolo

I've changed my mind about her. She is not a good choice. Apparently she is not even pro-life according to her own friend's words:

http://www.washtimes.com/functions/p...5-122400-8922r

Now he may describe her as "pro-life" but what he says here about her views demonstrates that she is not pro-life for being pro-life means you believe there is NEVER a "good reason" to take an innocent life of an unborn person.

[/QUOTE

The statements in the article are extremely vague and political. "Good reason" can be interpeted as risk to the mother, rape and incest, the child has a chance of being less than perfect to we can't afford to support a child and our four cars. Don't get me wrong I believe that there is no good reason for abortion. I have had to put those beliefs. I was offered an abortion of my first child. I refused. We both almost died. My instructions to the doctor were save my child, if you can't save my child don't bother to save me. But what I am saying here is that that statement is very vague. I also think actions speak louder than words. I like what has been posted about her donations to pro-life groups. But I am skeptical of everyone.

Barbara Ann:

The question is, Will she vote against the abomination known as Roe v, Wade?

She's donated to multiple people who are opposed to Roe v, Wade and has done so over a period of close to 20 years.

She fought against the "Pro-Choice" ABA position when doing so wasn't exactly popular in the legal community.

She vetted multiple Pro-Life nominees who claimed that Roe v. Wade wasn't supported by the plain meaning of the Constitution and was wrongly decided.

This has to be clear - If someone strictly interprets the Constitution according to the WORDS of the Constitution and the writings of the framers, and not according to the idea that "The Constitution is a Living Document", one has to vote against the "Rights" and the "Penumbras" enumerated in Roe v. Wade, and therefore against Roe v. Wade.

This is a matter of basic JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY and not whether someone is "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice".

She worked closely with President Bush for some 15 years and knew that his favorite Supreme Court Justice was Justice Clarence Thomas, who is not only Pro-Life, but is also a Strict-Constructionist with the JUDICIAL PHILOSPHY described above.

She's also demonstrated both moral and physical courage in tackling a corruption problem with the Texas Bar Assocation that no one else wanted to touch, and by moving to Washington, D.C. to work at the White House on 9/11/2001 and then staying there when almost everyone else was leaving the White House because it was too dangerous.

Don't you think that such a person would be able to tell the President that she wasn't right for the job if she thought that she was either not Pro-Life or a Strict-Construtionist? Don't you think that she'd be able to tell him "NO" if she thought she didn't have what it took to vote against the "Living Document Theory of the Constitution" and for the "Originist Interpretation" which would cause one to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Or, Are you so lacking in trust and charity that you'd rather question her basic honesty in such a situation?

Have you heard about the "Round-Heeled 14"? Have you heard about the 9 Republican Senators who've proven they were will not vote for the Constituional Option to break an Unjust Democratic Filibuster, no matter how Qualified the Nominee or how unjust the Filibuster? Have you heard about the 5 others who've said they'd have to think seriously before voting for the Constitutional Option?

That means that, if the President NOMINATED a Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell Michael Luttig, or Priscilla Owen, the Democratic Fiulibuster would NOT BE DEFEATED, because the Republicans would only (at most) be able to get 46 votes (51 are required - 60 otherwise) to invoke the Constitutional Option and break the Filibuster.

If that happened, we'd be stuck with another Sandra Day O'Conner or, even worse, a Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Can we afford for that to happen? Is that something you want to happen even in you worst nightmares?

I didn't think so.

Please think seriously about the real situation in the Senate, about the fact the President Bush didn't let us down on Judicial Nominees before now and remember who vetted and coached those nominees.

Thank you.

In Christ, Michael

Jennifer123 · #11 Oct 17, '05, 2:39 pm

[quote=Traditional Ang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barbara Ann

Have you heard about the "Round-Heeled 14"? Have you heard about the 9 Republican Senators who've proven they were will not vote for the Constituional Option to break an Unjust Democratic Filibuster, no matter how Qualified the Nominee or how unjust the Filibuster? Have you heard about the 5 others who've said they'd have to think seriously before voting for the Constitutional Option?

That means that, if the President NOMINATED a Janice Rogers Brown, Michael McConnell Michael Luttig, or Priscilla Owen, the Democratic Fiulibuster would NOT BE DEFEATED, because the Republicans would only (at most) be able to get 46 votes (51 are required - 60 otherwise) to invoke the Constitutional Option and break the Filibuster.

If that happened, we'd be stuck with another Sandra Day O'Conner or, even worse, a Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Can we afford for that to happen? Is that something you want to happen even in you worst nightmares?

I didn't think so.

Please think seriously about the real situation in the Senate, about the fact the President Bush didn't let us down on Judicial Nominees before now and remember who vetted and coached those nominees.

Thank you.

In Christ, Michael

This is a great post if indeed this is what Pres. Bush is facing. Not that I don't trust your information, I know you are very informed. It shows that Bush is definately between a rock and hard place.
I hope Miers is the justice the right deserves. However, I subscribe to Time and was suprised when I read the following, "This is very important, and I don't think the public understands....When you take an oath and swear that you will judge cases properly after that, you can't interject your personal views or religious faith into decisions because it would be wrong. You would either be a bad Christian or a bad judge...." From Justice Nathan Hecht, a close associate to Miers and the person who interoduced her to Evangelicalism. (Time10/17/05)