Talking smart about Obama’s Supreme Court pick
Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, sent a letter to Senate Democrat Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy yesterday that was pretty brilliant….
Recall President Abortion indicated during the campaign he admired Supreme Court justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter. Both are so fanatically pro-abortion they voted twice (2000 and 2007) against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban, meaning Obama supports Supremes so entrenched they will even support a barbaric abortion procedure killing a half-born baby contrary to the will of the people, since 30 states had passed PBA bans by 2000.
Of course. Obama himself opposed the PBA Ban and also infamously stated during the campaign his primary focus as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would overturn every local, state, and federal restriction made against abortion in the past 36 years.
So Obama’s abortion agenda reaches well beyond the confines of Roe v. Wade.
This brings us to Yoest’s letter, intended to put pressure on Leahy and Democrats while speaking to the sensibilities of frustratingly genteel Republicans as well as the American public, generally unthoughtful on abortion but paying enough attention these past several months to have taken a huge turn away from it:
The most important question a nominee for the Supreme Court must answer is to articulate their judicial philosophy: Will they advance an agenda that limits the right of the people to determine the content of abortion-related laws through the democratic process?
Think about it. That is what Roe v. Wade did and what Obama wants the Supreme Court to continue to do. Yet the question never mentions Roe v. Wade. Not that “Roe v. Wade” has become anathema to mention. But liberals and MSM have successfully hidden what Roe v. Wade actually did.
Now this was a common sense question. Leahy and Dems secretly hope the nominee thinks yes but would have a hard time defending that position out loud. We must drive them to.
Yoest added:
The President has expressed a public commitment to reducing the frequency of abortion in the United States. Appointing a nominee who intends to read the Freedom of Choice Act into the Constitution will undermine that objective, increase the number of abortions nationwide, and further disenfranchise millions of Americans who want to settle this issue through the democratic process.
More common sense and drawing in the now radioactive FOCA.
We have to think of new ways to talk about the consequences of a pro-abort Supreme Court justice that won’t cause Americans’ eyes to glaze over or to reach wrong conclusions on our point.
Look at this email from the pro-abortion group EMILY’s List yesterday. It never mentions the word it hates, “abortion.” I’m not saying we abandon the word. Quite the opposite. We should focus more than ever on saying abortion abortion abortion since it is clear the other side considers it a loser for them. No, all I’m saying is we could learn from EMILY’s List to speak in ways to reach our audience:
Read Yoest’s entire letter here.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
first off, gotta love the fact that I’m part of an “extremist right wing group” (I think she means terrorist *gasp*)
“Even though a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same decision, there are life experiences a woman has that come from growing up in a woman’s body that men don’t have.”
I think, Old Ruthie here forgets that those experiences are not just limited to women wanting to abort their babies. Those “experiences” also include being:
a post-abortive mother and having to deal with all that entails,
being a mother who WANTS to continue her pregnancy but has no support from her partner or the health clinic she visits,
being a pregnant woman and not being fully informed about abortion,
or
being a minor abused by an adult and being offered “choice” only to be sent back to be reabused by the caring staff of your local PP.
Or maybe those positions are not worth representation on the Supreme Court?
The court. It appears the leftist extremists are hung up on the “pursuit of LIFE, liberty and happiness.”
So the court should have limits on whose LIFE?
Dear Ms. Malcolm:
NOT ALL women support the murder of innocent unborn children whose ONLY “Crime” was being conceived!
Yoest said: “The most important question a nominee for the Supreme Court must answer is to articulate their judicial philosophy: Will they advance an agenda that limits the right of the people to determine the content of abortion-related laws through the democratic process?”
“Now this was a common sense question. Leahy and Dems secretly hope the nominee thinks yes but would have a hard time defending that position out loud. We must drive them to.”
IMHO, this question is ambiguous. Conservatives who believe in the strictest interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of rights would answer “no”. Democrats could answer either way depending how they define “people”. Assuming they believe in a progressive judiciary as is common and I believe implied by Yoest’s letter… and they interpret the word “people” to mean “men and/or women who want abortion to remain legal” they could answer “no”.
“Hoping” the Democratic nominee answers “yes” could backfire.
I’ve recently started listening to talk-radio host Mark R. Levin, a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, and president of Landmark Legal Foundation. I just started reading his new book “Liberty and Tyranny: a Conservative Manifesto” which is on the NY Times bestseller list. I highly recommend it!
Janet, Mark Levin is sooooo funny. Don’t you just love him?
Very well. For the sake of the American people, I will accept a nomination to the Supreme Court, though it will be a great sacrifice to my family and I.
I hope they don’t mind if I breastfeed during the proceedings, though.
heather, yes I do!
YCW, You are a true patriot.
Seeing as all women think in the same way on this and all issues–that is, emotionally rather than logically–I should be as acceptable as anyone else with 2 x chromosomes.