Time ignored relevant evidence in presenting Miers's "paper trail" on abortion
A Time magazine article by Jyoti Thottam, which will appear in the October 17 edition but was posted online on October 9, purported to offer readers a look at the "scant evidence" -- including interviews with colleagues and former associates -- regarding Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers's views on the legal issues of the day. On the contentious topic of abortion, however, the article merely highlighted Miers's past objections to the American Bar Association's official endorsement of a constitutional right to abortion and reported that "she never stated her underlying position on abortion." But Time ignored additional evidence, including recently reported interviews with acquaintances who claim to have discussed the issue with her, suggesting Miers may strongly oppose abortion rights.
Nathan Hecht, a member of the Texas Supreme Court and close friend of Miers, has repeatedly said in recent interviews that she is "pro-life." On the October 6 broadcast of NBC's Today, Hecht again affirmed that Miers opposes abortion, although he stated that her personal views do not necessarily guarantee that she would vote to overturn the landmark abortion rights decision Roe v. Wade if confirmed to the Supreme Court:
KATIE COURIC (co-host): Now, needless to say, as you well know, Judge Hecht, many people are wondering about her views on a variety of hot-button social issues. I guess first and foremost, how she feels about abortion and Roe vs. Wade. A quote from you that ran yesterday on this program said, "Harriet and I have attended pro-life dinners in Dallas years ago. She attends an evangelical church in Dallas when she's there and has for 25 years. That takes a very strong pro-life position. Well, I think she's pro-life." Have the two of you ever discussed her views on abortion? Or are you assuming because she's a member of this church, she shares the views of that church?
HECHT: Oh, we've probably talked about it some. But I mean, I think her commitment to the church and just what I know about her, she's pro-life.
COURIC: And so she believes that women should not have a legal right to abortion in this country? Does she believe that, for example, Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision, should be overturned?
HECHT: Well, what she thinks about legal rights and legal cases and Roe vs. Wade are totally different from what she thinks about her pro-life views. I mean, Harriet's a lawyer and soon to be, I hope, a judge. And you separate those things.
COURIC: So you believe that she would not push to overturn Roe v. Wade if she were confirmed as a Supreme Court justice?
HECHT: I just don't know. I don't think, you know, there's no way to know that. A person who is serious about judging couldn't tell you what they're going to do in a case that they haven't heard it. They really can't. There's just no way to know.
Further, an October 7 Washington Post article reported that, as a candidate for the Dallas city council in the late 1980s, Miers met with a group of local women and left them with the impression that she "was completely opposed to abortion rights":
In another instance, candidate Miers agreed to sit down with a group of abortion rights activists. Operation Rescue was staging regular protests at area abortion clinics, and the group of about 10 women who met with Miers wanted to know whether she supported a 1985 city ordinance that protected patients from harassment. Four of the women in attendance said in interviews that Miers was immovable.
"She said, well, I'm sorry, it's murder, and that's that," said Joy Mankoff, founder of a local women's political action network. "There was no room for any discussion."
Although the women left the meeting convinced that Miers was completely opposed to abortion rights, one, liberal lawyer Louise B. Raggio, continued to support Miers and still does. Miers, for her part, has raised money to promote a lecture series on women's issues bearing Raggio's name. The first speaker was feminist Gloria Steinem.
The Time article also failed to note Miers's widely reported $150 contribution to the anti-abortion group Texans United for Life in 1989.
From the October 17 issue of Time magazine:
With an even thinner paper trail than John Roberts', Harriet Miers has left both supporters and opponents guessing. To gauge her thinking on key legal issues, they are combing through everything from old bar-association newsletters to interviews with her fellow churchgoers. Here's a look at the scant evidence so far:
ABORTION: While president of the Texas Bar Association, Miers joined a debate in the early 1990s within the American Bar Association over whether the A.B.A. should take a stand on abortion. The group had gone from neutral to pro-choice and back again. Miers, joined by other Southern state bar associations, pushed the A.B.A. to remain neutral, but she never stated her underlying position on abortion.
So what if she's Pro-Life? Where is it written that EVERY Supreme Court Judge must be Pro-Choice? I wish you people would relax....Roe vs. Wade will NOT be overturned. Abortion will REMAIN legal.
Is THIS the one&only litmus test Liberals have? There are OTHER issues....
The topic here is the media misinformation, Jeter. And liberals are NOT framing the Miers debate.
If we had a MSM forum for talking about what we cared about, we'd be informing the public about Miers' pro-business leanings and what that will mean to hard-working middle class families.
Well, that's true. However, the Republican base, comprised largely of hyper-regressive Christians, is drooling over the prospect of reversing Roe v. Wade, and Bush would ignore them at his party's peril. Abortion is only one issue, but its repeal represents the camel's nose under the tent. If the new Court is willing to ignore precedence and roll back the Right to Privacy crystallized in the Roe decision, then where will they stop? If this happens, expect a flurry of new lawsuits over cultural issues, as the Religious Right tries to return the country to their mythical Leave-It-To-Beaver pre-60s utopia.
"So what if she's Pro-Life? "
People who refer to themselves as "pro-life" are actually anti-abortion or pro-forced pregnancy. They are definitely anti-woman. The move to make abortion illegal is fundamentally sexist, and really, really bad social policy. I'm guessing you know very little of what life was like before Roe v. Wade, or you would not so cavalierly dismiss the issue.
"Where is it written that EVERY Supreme Court Judge must be Pro-Choice" In the U.S. Constitution. The anti-abortion stand is grounded (albeit hypocritically) in religion. The Constitution says explicitly that there shall be NO religious test for government office. If Miers was chosen on the basis of promises to the Christian right regarding her stand on Roe v. Wade, her candidacy should be dismissed immediately.
"I wish you people would relax....Roe vs. Wade will NOT be overturned. Abortion will REMAIN legal." And meanwhile there are fewer and fewer abortion providers, Plan B does not get approved for OTC sale, a global gag rule on discussing abortion forces clinics to close in developing countries, all sorts of laws are passed around the state making abortion more and more difficult to get... But we're supposed to ignore all this and count on the assurances of an anonymous internet poster?
"Is THIS the one&only litmus test Liberals have? There are OTHER issues...." Most liberals I know can handle many issues at the same time. Making abortion illegal is a question of life and death, it is wholly sexist, it potentially affects half the population of the U.S., the debate over the issue is in itself a microcosm of the struggle against the fanatical right-wing theocrats that we have endured since the dawn of the so-called "Moral Majority", and it is an obsession of the lunatic Christian right that forms the base of the Republican party these days. So, forgive me for thinking that it's kind of important, but it really is.
"People who refer to themselves as "pro-life" are actually anti-abortion or pro-forced pregnancy. They are definitely anti-woman. The move to make abortion illegal is fundamentally sexist, and really, really bad social policy. I'm guessing you know very little of what life was like before Roe v. Wade, or you would not so cavalierly dismiss the issue."...by tita
Does that mean that people who consider themselves "pro-choice" are also PRO-ABORTION? Just asking....Pro-Forced? Jeez that's a new one.
Pro-life is not anti-woman, it could be described as pro-unborn child, or pro-fetus, (IF that"word" makes you feel better)....
"The anti-abortion stand is grounded (albeit hypocritically) in religion. The Constitution says explicitly that there shall be NO religious test for government office. If Miers was chosen on the basis of promises to the Christian right regarding her stand on Roe v. Wade, her candidacy should be dismissed immediately"....by tita
There are (according to most polls) over 80% Christians in the USA...according to other polls its 60%-40% in favor of Pro-Choice...so much for your ANTI-ABORTION is grounded in religion theory. Yes I'm aware the Christian-Right does make the Right to Life one of their MAIN issues...but YOU made a Blanket Statement that is factually incorrect.
I would guess (someone alert me IF I'm wrong) that ALL of the Supreme Court Justices are Christians. I guess YOUR perfect Court would be made up of ALL Atheists?
I believe MOST Judges and Lawmakers do NOT base their PROFESSIONAL decisions on their PERSONAL religious beliefs...even John Kerry&Ted Kennedy have said that they are PERSONALLY against abortion--or Pro-life...BUT do NOT bring that into their legislative decisions.
"And meanwhile there are fewer and fewer abortion providers, Plan B does not get approved for OTC sale, a global gag rule on discussing abortion forces clinics to close in developing countries, all sorts of laws are passed around the state making abortion more and more difficult to get... But we're supposed to ignore all this and count on the assurances of an anonymous internet poster?"...by tita
Roe v Wade ONLY involves the United States, not what is happening in "developing countries"...Where is it HARD or DIFFICULT to get an abortion here in the US????
"Most liberals I know can handle many issues at the same time. Making abortion illegal is a question of life and death, it is wholly sexist, it potentially affects half the population of the U.S., the debate over the issue is in itself a microcosm of the struggle against the fanatical right-wing theocrats that we have endured since the dawn of the so-called "Moral Majority", and it is an obsession of the lunatic Christian right that forms the base of the Republican party these days. So, forgive me for thinking that it's kind of important, but it really is."...by tita
Well then I'd love to hear the "other issues" cause all I ever hear is panic attacks over Roe v Wade.
Yeah abortion is a question of "life&death...but that would be the "life or death" of the UNBORN CHILD or FETUS (if you prefer that "word")...not usually of the mother.
BTW I'm Pro-choice/Pro-Life...ah you say but that's an oxymoron!!!
Not really. I believe abortion should be legal...but I'd also like to see abortion as the absolute last option whenever possible. And I do not believe abortion should be used as "birth control" AFTER the fact.
BTW I consider myself a Christian, though you'll rarely find me in a Church unless it's for a wedding or a Funeral. I'm a Catholic who practices birth control. I'm NOT the "stereotype" people like YOU love to portray as being pro or anti abortion.
jeter2,
As an aside, I do believe Ginsburg and Breyer are Jewish.
I'm pretty certain Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts are Catholic. I'm not sure of the others.
"As an aside, I do believe Ginsburg and Breyer are Jewish.
I'm pretty certain Kennedy, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts are Catholic. I'm not sure of the others."...by anotheramerican
oops..you're right. Forgot about that.
Well tita simply said "religion" so we'll still include them ;-)
>> There are (according to most polls) over 80% Christians in the USA...according to other polls its 60%-40% in favor of Pro-Choice...so much for your ANTI-ABORTION is grounded in religion theory. Yes I'm aware the Christian-Right does make the Right to Life one of their MAIN issues...but YOU made a Blanket Statement that is factually incorrect.
Not your best argument, Jeter. That's like saying militant jihadism isn't based on Islamic religious fervor because a certain percentage of Muslims disapprove of it. Or you could use the godhatesfags guy as another example. He's religious and IDs as Christian, but his views are not representative of 100% of Christians.
"Not your best argument, Jeter. That's like saying militant jihadism isn't based on Islamic religious fervor because a certain percentage of Muslims disapprove of it. Or you could use the godhatesfags guy as another example. He's religious and IDs as Christian, but his views are not representative of 100% of Christians."...by Sagra
Sagra, MY point was that Religion doesn't necessarily mean Pro-Life. There are Christians that are Pro-Choice. On the other hand there are people who are Pro-Life whose opinion is NOT based on anything to do with religion.
tita stated:
"The anti-abortion stand is grounded (albeit hypocritically) in religion."
To say Religion is the BASIS of a Pro-Life stance or to say it is "grounded" in RELIGION, is a Blanket Statement and is factually wrong.
How is it factually wrong?
>> Not really. I believe abortion should be legal...but I'd also like to see abortion as the absolute last option whenever possible.
I'd be interested in knowing how you'd accomplish your goal of making abortion the absolute last option? I mean, what kind of law would do that?
>> And I do not believe abortion should be used as "birth control" AFTER the fact.
I think first-trimester abortions are all "birth control AFTER the fact," by definition, aren't they? What else would they be?
Did you mean that women should use better birth control methods and not depend on abortion as their first defense against unwanted pregnancies?
- unwanted pregnancies? - sagra ================================================================
Unwanted pregnancies are the result of rape or poor planning. The pregnant mother should not be forced to carry a rape produced baby.
The pregnant mother should face the consequences of poor planning or irresponsiblity...not the helpless baby.
Was anyone talking to you? No.
I asked Jeter to clarify his position. I know yours already.
sweeny wrote: "The pregnant mother should not be forced to carry a rape produced baby."
Do you think the baby created this way deserves to die?
What difference is it to the baby if the father forced himself on the mother or if the mother willingly participated?
While it is an abhorent crime to rape someone and then for that woman to become pregnant, the baby is also a victim. Lets not forget that.
In every other case of criminal acts, we do not kill the victims for the actions of the criminal.
Yes, it is terrible that the mother became pregnant. However, killing the baby for the actions of the father does not make it right.
So you are pro-forced pregnancy. It's nice to see you come clean about that at least.
So you are pro-forced pregnancy. It's nice to see you come clean about that at least.
by Sagra - Wednesday October 12, 2005 11:54:31 AM EST
Exactly HOW do you "force pregnancy?"
>> Exactly HOW do you "force pregnancy?"
You do know what rape is, don't you?
Sagra,
If you want to characterize my statement that I am for forced pregnancies, that is your perogative.
I am also for forced parenthood. In other words, I believe that parents should do their best to feed, clothe, shelter, and teach their children. If they can't do it, they should give their child to someone who can. I do not believe parents can just up and let their children die. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine you are for forced parenthood too.
But getting back to "forced" pregnancies. My line of thinking goes like this. Lets say your father accosts you and your mother. He robs you and your mother, shooting her, but not killing her. the bullet goes through her and also hits and also seriously injures you too. Does your mother have the right, because she is injured, to kill you? Obviously not, even though both she and you will carry that wound and the lasting physical and psychological effects for the rest of your lives. You are both victims of your fathers crime.
Lets change the scenario and now say your mother was raped and shot by your father five minutes after you were born. You are both injured but you both survive. You are still both victims. Does your mother have the right to kill you then?
Now lets say, your mother is two months pregnant with you and is raped by your father. Rembember you are still in her body and therefore also a victim. Should she be allowed to kill you because she was raped? Again you are both victims.
Now lets say she is raped by your father and becomes pregnant with you but she doesn't know it for two months. Should she be allowed to kill you then?
One last example would be that the father is different than your existing father, perhaps the man is unkown. But if you are the baby, that man, whoever he is, is still your father. Does your mother not knowing your father who raped her make a difference regarding you as the baby? In my mind it does not. In all the scenarios I just now made up, I believe you deserve life.
"I am also for forced parenthood. In other words, I believe that parents should do their best to feed, clothe, shelter, and teach their children. If they can't do it, they should give their child to someone who can."
If they have an option to quit, then it's not forced, is it?
Sagra wrote: "If they have an option to quit, then it's not forced, is it?"
Your argument is semantic quibbling. Parents do not have the option to just simply quit being a parent. They do not have the option to kill their children. They do not have the option to abandon them. They do not have the option to maltreat them. If the simply quit, they will be arrested for a whole host of offenses. So until they have their parental responsibilites transferred, they are forced parents.
sagra wrote: " gave the rest of your post a quick scan, but your failure to comprehend the difference between forced and non-forced led to several huge gaping holes in your argument."
"I leave their identification as an exercise for the student."
With all due respect, that is simply a cop-out as far as I'm concerned and a very weak reply. But, unlike parenthood, you can simply quit. ;-)
[link to www.illinoislegalaid.org]
I gave the rest of your post a quick scan, but your failure to comprehend the difference between forced and non-forced led to several huge gaping holes in your argument.
I leave their identification as an exercise for the student.
"I'd be interested in knowing how you'd accomplish your goal of making abortion the absolute last option? I mean, what kind of law would do that?"...by Sagra
No law sagra, just a PERSONAL option on the part of any woman faced with a decision. Another words, when faced with an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy, I'd HOPE that other options (if possible) such as adoption would be taken into consideration BEFORE choosing abortion.
"I think first-trimester abortions are all "birth control AFTER the fact," by definition, aren't they? What else would they be? Did you mean that women should use better birth control methods and not depend on abortion as their first defense against unwanted pregnancies?"...by Sagra
Yes precisely. I would rather see better birth control methods...sorry I didn't explain that in my other post.
Thanks, Jeter. Believe it or not your position echoes Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" refrain.
I think that too much energy is spent by one side trying to erode reproductive rights and the other trying to defend them. We don't put enough energy into trying to make abortions rare.
I believe most abortion clinics do provide information or counselling on other options that are available. If they don't, they should be required to. Some of the private adoption options could be very attractive -- though you have to accept that it wouldn't appeal to every woman.
"Does that mean that people who consider themselves "pro-choice" are also PRO-ABORTION? Just asking...." Actually, you point to an error in my original assertion. People who refer to themselves as pro-life are not anti-abortion, or they would actually do something to make abortion rarer (like approve of birth control, teach real sex education (not those ridiculous just-say-no courses), approve plan B, support family planning organizations like Planned Parenthood, etc. What they are actually against is legal abortion, since we know from history - and from the present, when millions of women die in countries that do not have legal abortions from botched attempts at terminating pregnancies - that making abortion illegal does not make abortion go away. My point, anyhow, is that pro-life is not a term used by those against the death penalty or those against war, who are far more honest in expressing their actual goals. "Pro-life" is a gross minomer and a propaganda tool used by those who want to return to the days of back alley abortions. "Pro-Forced? Jeez that's a new one." Not. People who are against legal abortions would prohibit it even in cases of rape and incest. That's forced pregnancy. Raping the woman twice. "Pro-life is not anti-woman, it could be described as pro-unborn child, or pro-fetus, (IF that"word" makes you feel better)...." You obviously have not studied this issue as much as I and others have. States with the strictest anti-abortion laws also have the most anti-woman laws. This is no mere coincidence. Women are overwhelmingly represented in the pro-choice movement. Men are overwhelmingly represented in the anti-legal abortion movement. This is no mere coincidence. The most patriarchal religious sects are also the most adamantly anti-abortion. This is no mere coincidence. Everywhere you look at the anti-abortion movement you'll find that it's about keeping women in their place. "There are (according to most polls) over 80% Christians in the USA...according to other polls its 60%-40% in favor of Pro-Choice...so much for your ANTI-ABORTION is grounded in religion theory. " This and the rest of your argument makes no sense. The anti-abortion argument is based on a religious argument that a human soul is created by the will of God at the moment sperm touches egg. The subject in that sentence is the argument, not religion or religious affiliation or people who happen to call themselves religious. If it's a religious argument, it has no place in our government. Period.
"Yes I'm aware the Christian-Right does make the Right to Life one of their MAIN issues...but YOU made a Blanket Statement that is factually incorrect." And I guess that would be the one you just tacitly agreed with. Look up Christian right websites and you'll see that Roe v. Wade is their top issue, followed by exclusion of gay people from the legal protections offered through marriage. (Or, if you prefer propagandistic euphemisms, "pro-family" issues). "I believe MOST Judges and Lawmakers do NOT base their PROFESSIONAL decisions on their PERSONAL religious beliefs...even John Kerry&Ted Kennedy have said that they are PERSONALLY against abortion--or Pro-life...BUT do NOT bring that into their legislative decisions." Exactly. Now you're making my point. Kerry and Kennedy understand that their personal religious beliefs are moot within their functions as government service. In this case we have one James Dobson saying that Karl Rove promised him Miers passes the (unconstitutional) religious test. There's smoke here, and the press is required to investigate and be honest about what's going on or they will be consistent with a blatantly unconstitutional move on the part of the administration and the Christian right. "Roe v Wade ONLY involves the United States, not what is happening in "developing countries"...Where is it HARD or DIFFICULT to get an abortion here in the US????" 90% of women in the US live in counties that have exactly 0 abortion providers. And the gag rule is a US government rule against the free speech rights (not abortion rights, by the way) of US organizations that provide family planning services in developing countries. "Well then I'd love to hear the "other issues" cause all I ever hear is panic attacks over Roe v Wade." You should get out more. "Yeah abortion is a question of "life&death...but that would be the "life or death" of the UNBORN CHILD or FETUS (if you prefer that "word")...not usually of the mother." A zygote, an embryo, and a fetus are obviously not a child. Wheat is alive when it's planted in the ground too. Do pro-lifers argue against harvesting it because the innocent wheat doesn't have a right to choose? People who live in the reality-based community know that making abortion illegal doesn't make abortion go away, just as making same-sex marriage illegal doesn't make gay couples go away. We're supposed to make social policy for the common good and based on the reality of our situation. We're constitutionally prohibited from making social policy to buttress some particular group's religious convictions. "Not really. I believe abortion should be legal...but I'd also like to see abortion as the absolute last option whenever possible. And I do not believe abortion should be used as "birth control" AFTER the fact." Then why are you arguing with me? "BTW I consider myself a Christian, though you'll rarely find me in a Church unless it's for a wedding or a Funeral. I'm a Catholic who practices birth control. I'm NOT the "stereotype" people like YOU love to portray as being pro or anti abortion." You're the one who is stereotyping. I'm a Catholic too. Catholics overwhelmingly reject the church's teaching on sexuality. Catholics are just as likely to have abortions as any other group. In Latin America (my background) almost everyone is Catholic, abortion is mostly illegal, and women die regularly from do-it-yourself abortions. I'm not pro-choice. I'm pro-reality.
"The difference I see, is that the zealots are on the fringe and make up a very small percentage of Republicans, while the intolerant left seems to make up a very sizable percentage of the Democrats or at least the Democratic leadership."
The response was indeed to you for that very inaccurate statement. The "intolerant right" is indeed comprising the leadership in the GOP.
Besides, one need not know me or my mother-in-law -- nor is it necessary to know the names of the Senator or Congressman since they had nothing to do with her ostracization.
The point is, your claim of the "zealots on the fringe...make up a very small percentage of Republicans" is a red herring. It is in fact that zealotry who has control of the GOP leadership at this time.
The issue here is not whether she is a Christian. It is whether she has made her Roe v. Wade plans known to Bush. I think the point is that she likely has a plan, has discussed it with friends and colleagues, and almost certainly the Bush/Rove camp. Why on earth would Dobson endorse her if he is not convinced she would actively seek overturn?
Dobson initially had misgivings; The Bush camp spoke with Dobson; Dobson now supports Miers judgeship. Bush denies knowing her opinion on Roe v. Wade, but two-steps the question of whether he has discussed "it" with her ("I have never sat down with her"). Sort of sounds like everything depends on what the definition of "it" is.....
There is a paucity of information about her judicial decision making philosophy. The media is failing their responsibility of discovery and disclosure by not writing about what is known about her philosophy, which is the point of this MMFA article.
I think you've nailed it. Dobson's views are no secret, despite what Another American says. If he has endorsed her based on private conversations, it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to deduce what they talked about. Does anyone really expect us to believe that Dobson wants someone who will be impartial on the bench? Please!
Cyber Nanny just woke up.