Poor Sam Alito. His past stand against abortion was clearly based on a logical conclusion that “Roe is bad law,” and he said so in his opinions and commentaries. Now that he has to get votes from liberal Senators like Charlie Schumer and Ted Kennedy, he must try to back peddle and disavow his former comments.
Why Must Alito Take the “Roe Oath”?
The National Pro-Life Action Center’s Stephen Peroutka says that, “A nominee who is willing to take the seemingly mandated Roe oath, whereby they testify that it is settled law, never to be overturned, is not the type of justice worthy of pro-life support ” Peroutka is right if this is what Alito is really doing.
In stories appearing Tuesday Alito admits that back in 1985 he disagreed with the Roe decision and said the Constitution did not protect the right to abortion. But on Wednesday he is reported telling pro-abortion Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy that he is wiser now, that back then he was just trying to get a job in the anti-abortion Regan administration. Now he has a better grasp and understanding of constitutional rights and liberties.
Does Alito’s assuring them that things are different now mean he has changed his position on Roe? Or is he just playing the game now necessary if he is to get pro-abortion Senators votes?
What a shame it is that a nominee has to set aside truth and reason to appeal to abortifile Democrats and moderate Republicans. Have we really sunk so low that a nominee has to betray his basic beliefs to lasso confirmation?
Tuesday’s Lessons show Eliasar refusing to even pretend to eat pork even to save his life. It might scandalize the Hebrew youth. So it’s a shame when a Catholic judge thinks he has to say he was ignorant when he opposed abortion, but is smart now and supports it.
We know Roe is an invented “right” with no basis in law or reason; we knew it then and we know it now. Why does Alito say he’s smarter now and isn’t troubled by Roe? We hope it’s a ploy, but maybe Alito is telling the truth: he really has changed.
Yet pro-aborts know Roe is wrong, like John Hart Ely, who says Roe is bad Constitutional law and a bad decision. Edward Lazarus, who is pro-abortion, calls it one of the most intellectually suspect constitutional decisions of the modern era. Other legal commentators who favor abortion urge Senators to abandon a pro-Roe litmus test, calling Roe indefensible. Sandra Day O’Connor said it is on a collision course with itself.
So why must Republicans all dance around it? Why can Washington Post editor Ben Wittes say that from its inception, Roe has had a legitimacy problem, stemming from its weakness as legal opinion, and that a right to abortion remains a highly debatable proposition, jurisprudentially and morally, but Alito must pretend he is blind to the truth, like the truth so boldly pointed out by Byron White, that Roe is “an exercise of raw, judicial power without precedent”? Stay tuned.
Richards on Plan B: Wrong Again
The ladies are bawling that their Plan B abortion pil is not getting over-the-counter approval. Their trusty Food and Drug Administration won’t release the pill from the doctor’s grasp. The FDA says it’s worried about the damage to young girls, and won’t release it without further study. Cindy Richards in her Chicago Sun-Times column claims it was never the Administration’s plan to let Plan B get FDA approval to go over-the-counter, and is using the young girl argument as a stalling tactic.
Richards, who is always wrong, writes:
It’s hard to believe that women in the most advanced country in the world might once again find birth control unavailable. It’s even harder to believe that anti-abortion groups would want to see that happen. The best way to prevent abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. There simply can’t be any debate about that.
Want to bet?
