Operation Rescue Participates in Specter Protest
Specter Draws Anti-Abortion Protesters
Associated Press
WASHINGTON, DC — Anti-abortion conservatives on Tuesday protested the possible elevation of Sen. Arlen Specter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman just as the Pennsylvania senator was trying to convince his Republican colleagues that he would be a strong advocate for President Bush’s judicial nominees.
More than a dozen protesters gathered outside a Senate office building where Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., keeps his offices, carrying signs saying “Bork Specter”, “Sen. Frist: Stop Judicial Activism” and “Senator Frist: Listen to We the People.”
Robert Bork was a conservative jurist whose nomination to the Supreme Court was thwarted.
Specter has been on the hot seat with conservatives since saying that anti-abortion judges would be unlikely to be confirmed by Senate. Since his remarks two weeks ago, he has tried to assure Republicans that he would not personally block any Bush nominees from getting a floor vote.
But several of the protesters said they didn’t trust Specter, and they want Frist to keep him from being elevated to the Judiciary chairmanship.
“This is just the beginning,” said Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue. “We worked very hard to put Bush back in office… and now is not the time to derail the president’s pro-life nominees.”
Specter also met with Frist and other Senate GOP leaders on Tuesday, and planned to meet later in the day with the current GOP committee members, who get the first vote on whether Specter will replace current chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.
Specter and the other Senate leaders would not comment after the meeting but several other senators have said they expected Specter to become Judiciary chairman.
Hatch is stepping down because of party-imposed term limits. Whatever decision the committee members make can be appealed to the full GOP caucus later.
“We’ll see what happens,” Specter said Monday.
Few GOP senators on the committee have spoken publicly about their feelings on the matter. But Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Monday that he was still undecided.
“I wished he hadn’t said it,” Sessions said. “But if you read what he said in its entirety, it wasn’t a direct threat to the president, although it would have been better left unsaid. It may simply be that there’s a difference between being the chairman and making those statements and being a single member of the committee.”
___
Associated Press writers Lara Jakes Jordan and Jeff McMurray contributed to this report.
November 16th, 2004 at 10:53 pm
I’m just watching your press conference on C-Span. While I respect your opinions and views, they do not make any sense to most people in the world. Your views are of course informed by your religious views. Your religious view that all human life is scared cannot be supported verbatim in our secular society. The reason is that adult, independent life is superior to the unborn child (which is totally dependent on the life of the mother) and as such must take a secondary place to the right of the mother to terminate a pregnancy for any other reason she deems reasonable. Your religious views on the preservation of human life would be more aptly directed to the abolishment of war and poverty around the world, rather than your arbitrary and quite sentimental attachment to the unborn fetus or child.
I hope you respect my views as much as I respect yours. The only difference between how the world is and how you wish the world to be is that abortion is protected by the law, a ban on abortion has been judged to be unConstitutional.
November 17th, 2004 at 7:54 am
This statement is chilling:
“The reason is that adult, independent life is superior to the unborn child (which is totally dependent on the life of the mother) and as such must take a secondary place to the right of the mother to terminate a pregnancy for any other reason she deems reasonable.”
You are placing the value of one life above that of another. That is what Hitler did and this led to the Holocaust. Besides, a 3 year old is dependent upon others for life. If you place a child of this age out on the street, she would not be able to survive. Should a caretaker be able to “terminate” a 3 year old for “any reason she deems reasonable?” The problem is that murder is not reasonable.
The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
What was “self-evident” then seems to be too much for people to grasp today, and millions of pre-born babies are paying for this ignorance with their lives. (By the way, “Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” does not include murdering the innocent and defenseless simply because they have needs that others find inconvenient.)
November 17th, 2004 at 10:41 am
what a loss to society of the artisans, engineers, scientists, doctors and statesmen that is so easily dismissed as a womans right to use her body as she sees fit
how can we condemn euthanasia or suicide, while condoning abortion, even in the most horrific partial birth abortions
how can we spend dollars and tears in desperately trying to nurture the premarturely born just a few rooms away from the hospital room where a completely viable child is dissected to death
how can we prosecute the mothers who abandon their newborns to die of exposure shortly after birth, yet justify the murder of innocent unborns simply because their bodies have been only partly exposed to the open air
pro-choice: abstinence, contraception, adoption or nurturing - taking responsibility for your actions
while extreme conditions may be the subject of debate by some, the current interpretation that the mental health of the mother as defined subjectively is sufficient to justify the forfeiture of a human potential is unacceptable
November 17th, 2004 at 1:55 pm
this move pre-empts a liberal judiciary from declaring a states ban on abortion, gay marriage and other conservative positions unconstitutional by reaffirming states rights; including a states right to recognize spiritual guidance
—- summary, cosponsors and current status
“Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government or officer of such government by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”
“Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than the constitutional law and English common law.”
“Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.”
“Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.”
S.2082
Sen Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL]
Sen Allard, A. Wayne [R-CO]
Sen Brownback, Sam [R-KS]
Sen Graham, Lindsey O. [R-SC]
Sen Inhofe, Jim [R-OK]
Sen Miller, Zell [D-GA]
2/12/2004: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
S.2323
Sen Shelby, Richard C. [R-AL]
Sen Allard, A. Wayne [R-CO]
Sen Brownback, Sam [R-KS]
Sen Graham, Lindsey O. [R-SC]
Sen Inhofe, Jim [R-OK]
Sen Lott, Trent [R-MS]
Sen Miller, Zell [D-GA]
Sen Bunning, Jim [KY]
4/20/2004: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R.3799
Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4]
Rep Pence, Mike [R-IN-6]
and 36 additional cosponsors
2/11/2004: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
4/26/2004: Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
9/13/2004: Subcommittee Hearings Held.
November 18th, 2004 at 8:56 pm
It is difficult to respect such a distorted view as the first commentator. The following quote shows why…
“Your religious view that all human life is scared cannot be supported verbatim in our secular society.”
Simon, this is simply dodging the real issue here. Abortion is not a religious view, it is a human life view. Take it from that basis, and you should see the flaw in your reasoning.
Steven
November 27th, 2004 at 11:50 pm
Abortion became legal when promiscuity was at its highest. It really makes me wonder if it was legalized for the reasons included in the case. I highly doubt it. Women and Men just wanted a way to erase their “mistakes”. Mr. Holden I seriously doubt that you respect our views. You think that an unborn child is inferior to an adult. Well what if another human being felt that way about you now, would it give them the right to kill you. I don’t think so. Why should it be for an unborn child. Think you were once an unborn child. Do you think that the lives of those around you would be the same without your presence. Everyone has a purpose here on earth. That is not only a Christian perspective if that is what your thinking. Adoption is a readily available choice Most couples or singles wanting to become parents will pay for expenses.
Remember ABORTION used to be unConstitutional.