While the recent protests in Washington, over the denial of links of Mercury in childhood vaccines to autism, were going on and getting precous little coverage, the media chose instead to focus on the on-going protests and dire warnings of doom issued by various Pro-Choice groups concerned over the reent nomination of John Roberts, of the Fifth U.S. District Curt of Washington, D.C., to the U.S. Supreme Court.
They just aren't going to give up, it seems, until Bush relents and nominates somebody that everyone knows for a fact is a rabid anti-abortion judge who will most definitely, without question, vote eventually to overturn Roe v. Wade. Unlike Roberts, whose only pronouncements ont he subject were as an attorney while in the porocess of representing his client. Yet, Roberts has as well, it turns out, had clients that required him to advocate from a liberal position. In one case, he advocated agaisnt a business consortium that wanted to take over an area made up of private home owners, in order to promote some kind of business development. There simply is no way of knowing where he stands onthe abortion issue. If I had to guess I would imagne that he is probably aganst it. But does it follow he is going to agitate for an excuse to overturn an established court precedent. I hardly think that is likely. Courts do not in general like to overturn precedents, as they would not like their own to one day be overturned. The few exceptions to these have certainly been understandable and appropriate. Brown v. Board of Eduacation was one such decison to overturn precedent.
So what are the extremists in the Pro-Choice crowd so worried about? The possible answer to this lies in the recent controversy involving the rights of parental notification. In other words if a teenage girl decides to get an abortion. They are against any such laws, on privacy grounds. The old canard they usualy float is that some parents may have molested their daughters, neices, and therefore they have a right to hide the abortion from these abusers. I am ashamed to admit it, but I at first bought this argment, actually took it at face value. But it's a stupid argument. To begin with, if a man impregnated his own dauhgter, I would imagine he would be more than happy to agree to her getting an abortion. Furthermore, the minute the paper work is made out, and they find out this is the reason the girl has not as yet gotten parental consent to have the abortion, they will certainly take care of that problem, with all it's potential consequences.
So what's the problem here? A young girl, or boy, who is under age, can not get any kind of medical procedure without parental consent. Why should an abortion be any different? It is just unreasonable to promote such a right, or to fight any law that is meant actually to insure the protection of the young and vulnerable from the dangers of abuse. Some of these people have never seen an abortion they didn't like or couldn't approve of, it seems, and they will brook no interference from anyone.
So then that brings up the question, what is the real problem with Roberts, other than his potential support of parental notification, and his probable readiness to support limits on third trimester abortions? Is this nothing, when all is said and done, but a massive fund raising effort on the part of the Pro-Choice groups? Would they make even more in the way of contributions if they could force Bush to nominate another Clarence Thomas? If so, then that is pretty pathetic, and would reveal the truth to something that I have suspected for some time now. That the movers and shakers, the leaders, of the Pro-Choice Movement, have taken it to the point that it really isn't about women's reproductive freedom and privacy rights anymore. It's just another big business with fiscal targets projections.
