Clark on Choice

[Mattforclark]

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=31260

MANCHESTER — Democrat Wesley Clark said yesterday he would never appoint a pro-life judge to the federal bench because the judge’s anti-abortion views would render him unable to follow the established judicial precedent of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

The Presidential candidate also told The Union Leader that until the moment of birth, the government has no right to influence a mother’s decision on whether to have an abortion.

“Life,” he said, “begins with the mother’s decision.”




And the thoughts of the ban-all-abortions crowd (posted from a RW source to show how much they like Clark).

http://www.lifenews.com/nat268.html

"I don't think you should get the law involved in abortion," Clark concluded. "It's between a woman, her doctor, her faith and her family and her conscience. You don't put the law in there."

Wright said Clark's comments come across as discriminatory.

"Clark has exposed how unknowledgeable he is on abortion and legal issues. His prejudice against two entire classes of people, compassionate, intelligent people in all walks of life -- pro-lifers, who are now the majority of Americans, and unborn babies -- would render him incapable of making rational decisions," Wright said.




If you want someone who will appoint judges who will enrage Scalia, Clark is it.

[HFishbine]

1. Actually

I want someone who WILL appoint judges who will enrage Scalia.

[Mattforclark]

2. ack, typo :)

Believe you me, I agree with you on that.

[HFishbine]

7. Oh

You had me confused.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

3. Clark seems to be staking out a radical position

The Presidential candidate also told The Union Leader that until the moment of birth, the government has no right to influence a mother’s decision on whether to have an abortion.

That goes way beyond the holdings in Roe. That seems to be a position, rightly or wrongly, that is far removed from the majority of Americans.

The courts have clearly stated that past the point of viability, the state has an interest in protecting the fetus. Clark's statement seems to go way beyond that.

Irrespective of what we may think of the soundness of such a position, I know it wouldn't "play in Peoria."

Look what else he says:

The retired four-star general said he will discern a prospective judge’s position on abortion not with a litmus test, but by reading his previous decisions to ensure that the judge has never upset existing judicial precedent.

]“I don’t believe people whose ideological agenda is to burn the law or remake the law or reshape it should be appointed whether they are from either side,” he said during an interview with editors and a reporter.

If he was true to that position, we wouldn't have had the Brown v. Board of Education or the Lawrence v. Texas decisions, since both changed existing precedents.

I don't think he really meant that. I think he was just being stupid.

I want someone who can win. He can't win with those positions that will turn off so many voters.

[Mattforclark]

4. Of course not

"I don't think he really meant that. I think he was just being stupid."

Wingnut spin. Clark was speaking quite clearly in the context of abortion, and was saying that he did not want people who would overturn Roe v. Wade.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

5. But did he really mean

that he supports a right to abortion right up the moment of birth? That's a very radical position.

I'm firmly pro-choice, but even I can't support that.

[lib13]

6. I agree....

or this? "life begins with the mothers decision"

Most Americans right or left don't believe that

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

8. Methinks he was just pulling a Dean

shooting from hip prior to engaging his brain.

[Democrats unite]

9. Greta article, thanks for posting it.

Just another reason Clark will be the Nominee.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

10. Don't go countin' them chickens before they hatch

'cause Clark will say their mothers have the right to abort 'em.

;-)