Miers Supported Ban on Most Abortions

[Rose Siding]

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 18, 2005; 10:46 AM

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment banning abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, according to material given to the Senate on Tuesday.

"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature," asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.

Miers checked "yes" to that question, and all of the group's questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off city health boards and commissions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101800143.html

[MadisonProgressive]

1. MSNBC BREAKING NEWS: Miers, in 1989...

backed amendment banning most abortion!

No link yet....

Here's the link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9737137/

[Straight Shooter]

2. Color me shocked.

Not.

[expatriot]

3. So this will make the conservatives happy, i guess. nt

[Walt Starr]

4. Linke here:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/18/D8DAGN681.html

[JanMichael]

6. My God! Who would have thought THAT???

It's just a rumor.

[MadisonProgressive]

5. MSNBC BREAKING NEWS: Miers, in 1989...

This thread has been combined with another thread.

Click here to read this message in its new location.

[lonestarnot]

7. well surprise surprise...not!

[Tesla]

8. Like Bush didn't know that when he hired her.....

or at ANYTIME!!!

He LIED AGAIN!!!!

[Pacifist Patriot]

10. In this day and age I have a hard time believing someone can

be friends (sycophants) and co-workers (cronies) for years (especially in politics) and not know someone else's stance on Roe v. Wade. You know damned well the subject of abortion has come up more than once. To deny that is the height of arrogance and demonstrates and utter lack of contempt for American intelligence.

[Pacifist Patriot]

9. No! I can't believe it.There must be a mistake somewhere.

:sarcasm:

[kysrsoze]

11. K&R

[Debau2005]

12. This is my problem

with the Anti Choice/Pro Life crowd, they don't know how to take a stand! Either you are Pro Choice or you are not. There is no gray area, such as in case of Mother's health, rape, incest, etc. Either you are Pro Choice or you are not!!!!

I can not respect wishy washy people.

[uppityperson]

14. As my mother used to say on the way out to counter-protest in Red state...

I never ever want any of you girls have to have an abortion, but if you need one, you need to be able to get one. She was very pro-choice and hating the need for abortions, very not-wishywashy. Too subtle for some people though.

[Voltaire99]

21. There is little but gray areas.

Much as you might like life to be as monochromatic as your views, it won't comply.

I support abortion in every instance; in fact, I encourage it liberally.

But I quite understand--and appreciate--why even those entranced by religion can make an exception in some cases.

The exception to the rule, you see, is what makes us human. "Wishy washy"; good lord, that's a laugh.

[uppityperson]

13. What are you implying? Look at her record, not these side issues

You'll see, she's Right for The Job because Mr.bush said so.

(I am glad this is getting out, thanks.)

[eagler]

15. We would be very naive to think otherwise given

the support she received from Dobson and Robertson.

[joems]

16. Miers Backed Abortion Ban in 1989

Miers Backed Abortion Ban in 1989

By Charles Babington and Fred Barbash
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, October 18, 2005; 1:15 PM

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers agreed in 1989 that she would "actively support" a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban abortion except when necessary to prevent the death of the mother.

Miers indicated her support for a "Human Life Amendment" on an April 1989 questionnaire she filled out for Texans United for Life when she was a candidate for the Dallas City Council. The document, which has been submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, was first reported today by the Associated Press.

On that form, she also said she would oppose the use of public funds for abortion and use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off of city boards and commissions dealing with health issues. She qualified her answer regarding boards and commissions by adding the words, "to the extent Pro-Life views are relevant."

The answer differentiates her appointment from that of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who left no explicit document indicating his personal views on abortion as opposed to the views of the Reagan administration when he was representing it.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[maddezmom]

17. duplicate topic

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1858148

[mzmolly]

18. !

[rodeodance]

19. gee, --someone better tell Miers

[ananda]

20. Miers is anti-choice!

Why am I so not surprised?

Sue

[Voltaire99]

22. This should endear her to the win-at-all-cost faction of the Dems

...who, sort of like Cthluhu, lie dreaming of Nascar voters. ;-)

However, it is hardly pleasing to us in the Democratic wing. And I'd say we're well past having any patience left for the party's spineless coporatists.

[ClintonTyree]

23. Stop the presses!

Well, OK. I guess there's no reason to stop the presses. But who could have possibly known that Harriet Miers is a woman hating theo-crat? :shrug: No one could have forseen this. Gee, where have we heard that before? :eyes:

[Catfight]

24. "She'll be the worst candidate EVER," and hopefully that's all she'll ever

be.

[slay]

25. We MUST be free to do what we want with our own bodies

otherwise we are slaves to those who decide for us. Nobody is forcing anyone to have an abortion. The solution to the abortion question is simple - if you don't want one, don't have one. The religious right need to learn to mind their own business and stop terrorizing the rest of us by threatening to criminalize abortion. (Which wouldn't stop abortions, it would just make them much less safe.)

[Caoimhe]

26. Extremists

So if a girl of say age 11 is sexually molested by her uncle and becomes pregnant, Miers thinks she should be forced to gestate and birth it. I'm sorry.. this is too extreme for words. This woman HATES other women. There is no other explanation! As Gloria Steinem once said "As a woman you are either a feminist or a masochist" and I SOOOO agree.

This is religious extremism, pure and simple.
:grr:

[kurth]

27. She's already failed

She's already failed
By Michael Goodwin

There are so many problems with Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court that it's hard to know where to begin. But it is easy to know where to end: Miers is not ready for prime time.

The final straw is a plan to delay the start of her Senate confirmation hearings, tentatively set for Nov. 7. It seems Miers has some cramming to do before she can face the Judiciary Committee. She needs, Sen. Chuck Schumer says, "some time to learn" about key constitutional cases. The panel chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), was quoted as saying, "It is unfair to start the hearings before she's ready."

Before she's ready? In plain English, they're talking about remedial education. Not since the City University of New York ended the insidious practice ofdumbing down its standards has a government institution stooped so low to accommodate an unqualified applicant.

That it is the Supreme Court at stake is astonishing. It's as if the Yankees said the owner has hired a new star center fielder, but first they have to teach him how to hit a baseball. It wouldn't happen there, and it shouldn't happen in the court...

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/357098p-304230c.html

[kurth]

28. Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial: Withdraw Miers

Wednesday, October 19, 2005
Supreme Court: Withdraw Miers
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

President Bush should withdraw the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The reason is not her personal views on abortion, although her 1989 support of a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw abortions except to save the life of the mother is troubling.

The reason is not her religious faith. Many God-fearing jurists have graced the Supreme Court.

It's not that she's a Bush crony, although a seat on the Supreme Court is something one should aspire to, not stumble into.

It is not even the fact that she's never served as a judge. The high court's history is replete with justices who were not first judges...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/245036_miersed.asp