Since President Bush has nominated Judge John Roberts to the US Supreme
Court, theabortion debate has held a prominent spot in public debate.
Judge Roberts is a strictconstructionist judge who abides by the Constitution
and does not legislate from the bench. Pro-abortion groups regard a
constructionist philosophy as a threat to Roe and their abortion rights.
The country’s largest pro-abortion organization, NARAL, is so
concerned about Roberts’s confirmation that they have now issued
false television ads suggesting that Roberts supports abortion clinic
bombings. We must arm ourselves with the knowledge to refute these accusations.
As Pro-Lifers, we are certainly accustomed to defending our positions.
The moral and political debate will only increase in the coming weeks
and months, and we must continue to defend all innocent human life,
even against the commonly held “exceptions” to abortion.
Please read this issue of the Pro-Life Update carefully to understand
some of the challenges we now face and how you—an educated Pro-Lifer—can
advance the Culture of Life. Please share this information with your
family, friends, and church congregations. Make copies. Spread the news.
President Bush Nominates Conservative Judge John
Roberts
President Bush has announced Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. as his nominee
to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the US Supreme Court.
Roberts, 50, is a conservative who currently sits on the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Roberts served as a law
clerk to then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist while completing his
law degree from Harvard; he later argued cases in front of the Supreme
Court as Deputy Solicitor General during the presidency of George H.W.
Bush. Despite his extensive experience, esteemed intellect, and outstanding
reputation, Roberts may face much opposition in the Senate confirmation
process. Abortion will be the main issue in this battle, as O’Connor’s
vote could potentially be replaced by a more conservative one.
In 1990, as a Justice Department official, Roberts wrote a brief in
a pending Supreme Court case stating the Administration’s position
“that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled.”
However, during his confirmation hearing as an Appeals Court nominee,
Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Roe v. Wade is “the
settled law of the land... There’s nothing in my personal views
that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying thatprecedent.”
While as yet there are no outright calls for his rejection from any
of the Senate’s 44 Democrats, abortion rights organizations have
declared their opposition to Roberts. NARAL has already falsely linked
him to abortion clinic bombings. Due to the potential of both partial-birth
abortion and parental involvement cases on the Supreme Court docket,
as well as O’Connor’s pivotal role on the court, Roberts’s
nomination will certainly be a political flash point in the Senate.
“Liberal pressure groups will insist that Senate Democrats filibuster
against Judge Roberts, unless he pledges in advance to vote against
allowing elected legislators to place meaningful limits on abortion,”
said NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. “Millions of Americans
will be watching to see if the Democratic senators bow to these demands.”
NARL Ad Suggests Roberts Supports Abortion Violence
A new NARAL commercial suggests that Supreme Court nominee Judge John
Roberts backs abortion-related violence. In the commercial, Emily Lyons,
an Alabama woman who was a victim of the 1998 abortion facility bombing
by Eric Robert Rudolph, criticizes Roberts for his amicus brief filed
on behalf of the Bush administration in a 1991 case involving Operation
Rescue and Michael Bray (who was found guilty of bombing abortion clinics).
Roberts’s brief stated that Pro-Life organizations have a right
to free speech whether their protests take place outside an abortion
clinic or at another location. This brief was filed seven years before
the bombing even occurred.
“This clearly is a smear campaign designed to ignore the facts
and make assertions that are simply untrue,” stated Jay Sekulow,
chief attorney at the American Center for Law and Justice. The non-partisan
University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Factcheck.org also reviewed
the NARAL ad and declared it to be “false.” They found that
“in words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took
a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false.”
Abortion and "the Exceptions"
Even Pro-Lifers dissent on some technicalities of the abortion issue.
Many people who care deeply for the unborn accept that abortion is permissible
in the cases of rape, incest, a disabled child, or to prevent the death
of the mother (“the exceptions”). While no more than 7%
of all abortions in the United States are performed for one of these
exceptions, we must examine these cases seriously (An Overview of Abortion
in the United States, Alan Guttmacher Institute, 2005). Justifying these
exceptions may seem easy, but Texas Right to Life remains resolute in
rejecting abortion as a permissible option in any circumstance. As always,
we must be compassionate and non-judgmental, since, with over 46 million
abortions since 1973, abortion has touched a great many lives.
Rape and incest are violent acts victimizing women. Although pregnancy
from rape is extremely rare, it can happen. If the woman then chooses
abortion, a second victim is tragically involved—the baby. Women
who were encouraged to abort their baby in such circumstances thought
that they had been put through a second act of violence.
When parents find out that their child will be disabled, the parents
and family members can understandably be dismayed. However, aborting
a child with a disability or illness is the height of prejudice. We
certainly cannot cure illness by killing the patient.
Possibly the most difficult question, though, is whether an abortion
is acceptable to prevent the death of the mother. This “exception”
seems to imply that one of these lives can be considered more valuable
than the other—either the life of the mother or the life of the
unborn baby. With current medical technology, rarely is the abortion
of the unborn child necessary to save the mother’s life. Although
many doctors or health care professionals may suggest and even pressure
parents to do so, such drastic action against the child is rarely a
medical necessity. Additionally, the life of an innocent person can
never be intentionally taken, and every effort must be made to preserve
and protect the lives of both patients.
The Pro-Life movement still has much work to ensure that all people
throughout the world are welcomed into Life and respected. If you would
like any additional information on the topics discussed above, log onto
www.TexasRightToLife.com. If you ever have questions about any Pro-Life
issues, please be sure to let me know.
