Anti-Choice v. Pro-Choice Judges

Neokahn · #1 07-08-2004, 07:34 PM

Here is an interesting editorial from my favorite newspaper, the Wall St. Journal:

Abortion Double Standards
July 8, 2004; Page A14

John Kerry explained his views on abortion last weekend to the Telegraph Herald of Dubuque, Iowa. "I oppose abortion, personally," he said. "I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist . . . who doesn't share it."

Mr. Kerry seems to be trying to re-assure voters that his personal religious beliefs on abortion will not influence his policy-making (an assertion borne out by his 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America). And that's fair enough. We only wish that he and many of his fellow Senate Democrats would give the same benefit of the doubt to President Bush's judicial nominees who are privately opposed to abortion but say they will uphold Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.

Consider Tuesday's Senate debate on Leon Holmes, nominee for the federal district court in Arkansas. Mr. Holmes -- who was narrowly confirmed 51-46 after a wait of more than a year -- is an anti-abortion, conservative Catholic. He was attacked by Democrats who argued in effect that his orthodox religious views made him unfit for the federal bench. Mr. Kerry was absent for the Holmes vote, but he has voted against other allegedly anti-abortion nominees, including joining last year's filibusters of Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen.

The message here seems to be: Liberals will keep their private views private, but conservatives cannot be trusted to do so. If Mr. Kerry's Catholic beliefs don't disqualify him from becoming President, and they shouldn't, then the same religious beliefs of conservative judicial nominees shouldn't disqualify them from serving as federal judges.

KatieKate3104 · #2 07-09-2004, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Neokahn:
Here is an interesting editorial from my favorite newspaper, the Wall St. Journal:

Abortion Double Standards
July 8, 2004; Page A14

John Kerry explained his views on abortion last weekend to the Telegraph Herald of Dubuque, Iowa. "I oppose abortion, personally," he said. "I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist . . . who doesn't share it."

Mr. Kerry seems to be trying to re-assure voters that his personal religious beliefs on abortion will not influence his policy-making (an assertion borne out by his 100% rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America). And that's fair enough. We only wish that he and many of his fellow Senate Democrats would give the same benefit of the doubt to President Bush's judicial nominees who are privately opposed to abortion but say they will uphold Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.

Consider Tuesday's Senate debate on Leon Holmes, nominee for the federal district court in Arkansas. Mr. Holmes -- who was narrowly confirmed 51-46 after a wait of more than a year -- is an anti-abortion, conservative Catholic. He was attacked by Democrats who argued in effect that his orthodox religious views made him unfit for the federal bench. Mr. Kerry was absent for the Holmes vote, but he has voted against other allegedly anti-abortion nominees, including joining last year's filibusters of Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen.

The message here seems to be: Liberals will keep their private views private, but conservatives cannot be trusted to do so. If Mr. Kerry's Catholic beliefs don't disqualify him from becoming President, and they shouldn't, then the same religious beliefs of conservative judicial nominees shouldn't disqualify them from serving as federal judges.

Thanks for sharing that article..It is so very true.

Paul_Fisher · #3 07-09-2004, 07:59 AM

If you believe that abortion is murder and don't oppose it, then you're human debris. Plain and simple.

It's like his vietnam days, when he participated in war atrocities.

We've got a scumbag of a different variety running to continue the Clinton legacy, looks like.

Mary-Lou · #4 07-09-2004, 10:18 AM

I agree with Paul. Slavery was once legal in America. What if someone said, "I am personally opposed to slavery, but since it is the law of the land, I will not impose my personal religious beliefs onto Slaveholders who have a different belief!" We put people in office precisely BECAUSE of their beliefs. We WANT them to legislate accordingly. Otherwise we wouldn't vote for them in the first place. DUH. [img]graemlins/whinner.gif[/img]