It is obvious in these hearings, one can never honestly give their position on abortion away, as that is the end-game of the charade. As I was questioned in my last post, the reason why it matters that Sotomayor won't answer questions definitively (or at all), is because most of the questions she has been asked are not hypotheticals. In previous confirmation hearings, it's a known fact that no nominee should be expected to predict their future rulings on any certain issue--and let's not pretend that we don't know that that hypothetical is more often than not, a ruling on the legality of abortion.
So, when she was grilled by Sen. Tom Coburn on the issue, it's fair game for her to answer with a 'non-answer' revolving around legal mumbo-jumbo. Let me just give you all a little background info on Coburn. He is a doctor, and during his tenure as an obstetrician, he delivered more than 4,000 babies. In response to Obama's wish for FOCA to pass, which could potentially force all OB's to perform abortions, he said he would like to see them take him out of his office and arrest him for not performing one. A stand-up guy! Therefore, the abortion issue is very important to him. I respect him for that. In past confirmation hearings, he has always brought up the issue to nominees, that it troubles him that
we define death by the lack of brainwaves and a heartbeat, but that the presence of both which can be measured in a baby at 39 days post conception, doesn't indicate life?
Of course, it's pretty much a rhetorical question, but it is a huge contradiction.
Another issue that Coburn brought up was another very hypocritical but common view of our Constitutional law. He asks her about gun rights and about abortion. In response to her answers, he asks
why is it considered 'settled law', for a woman to have the right to abort, which is not enumerated in the constitution, but not 'settled law' for citizens to own guns, when that right is incorporated in the constitution?
But the most crucial part for me, was when he quoted the Roe v. Wade ruling, which again was very vague, stating
a woman has a right to abortion, up to the point at which the fetus becomes viable.
and then he added:
with today's advancements in technology, we can keep a baby alive from as early as 21 weeks. Should it have any bearing whatsoever on the way we look at Roe v. Wade?
Unanswered of course. What a weak ruling to say that the right to kill your baby is implied in the constitution under the 'right to privacy'.
An interesting sidenote, it was recently revealed that current U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in a New York Times interview:
"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong (emphasis added)."
Why isn't anybody "outraged" (cue: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton et al) at how racist that is? You know she was inferring the poor black neighborhoods; and it has worked. Black women are 3 times more likely then whites or hispanics to abort their babies--partially due to the fact that they are targeted by the abortion industry. Planned Parenthood clinics are often built near poor black communities, and even offered discounts (for example after women affected by Hurricane Katrina were offered 'free abortions.') It really is a business ya know. For more information go to blackgenocide.org
Ginsburgs rulings are all pretty confusing. By the way, she dissented in the Ricci v. DeStefano case.
To watch the great videos of Coburn questioning Sotomayor,
click here pt 1 pt 2 pt 3
No comments:
Post a Comment