Excellent reply (with which I agree completely) to a comment left at this equally excellent post by Doctor Zero on the topic of abortion and the right to life: Victory Against Despair
A few points:
1) “. . . in fact, at most Planned Parenthood facilities, proper sex education accompanies every abortion.” Rather like bolting the barn door after the horse is gone, n’est-ce pas? According to many investigations, Planned Parenthood is indeed pro-choice . . . as long as the “choice” is infanticide. Oh, and what the hell is “proper” sex education? More to the point, who has been appointed to determine the answer to that question? Planned Parenthood? Clearly, in the opinion of many, parental input is optional . . .
2) “Or worse, will let a woman bleed to death during a ‘back alley’ procedure, simply because she’s immoral?” So does that mean that Society is guilty for every fatal heroin overdose because it has chosen to outlaw heroin use? When people choose to engage in dangerous and illegal behavior, the consequences are their responsibility . . . including the homicide of that person’s child.
3) “Make abortion illegal, and, like the wonderful anti-drug laws, abuses will still continue.” So we should quit making laws, because 100% enforcement is impossible? The point of law is only secondarily to punish the guilty; the primary purpose is to place the opprobrium of civil society on behavior that is detrimental to it, in order to discourage it and to stake out the boundaries of civil behavior. I don’t know what the penalty of law should be for the pitiable teenaged mother that is the liberal poster child for infanticide, although I have some ideas for the medical assassin involved. Even if the consensus of society is that it should be probation and counseling, similar to drug abuse, at least the penalty of law would demonstrate that we as a society place value on ALL human life.
4) “The same group that cries that government is ‘too much in our business’marches and fights for stricter laws and regulation as regards something that affects 2% of the population annually?” No, we’re arguing that law should be made at the state level. You know, like we do for murder. Is it your contention that, to be consistent, conservatives should consider legislation against murder to be “too much in people’s business”?
Oh, and my personal favorite . . .
5) “The same group that screams ‘right to life’ is also in favor of capital punishment, or silently applauds when an abortion clinic is bombed?” Yes, conservatives do hew to Locke’s formulation of the rights to life, liberty, and property. It is also an indispensable tenet of civil society that a possible consequence of violating the law is the forfeiture of one or more of these rights. Is it your contention that, to be consistent, conservatives must oppose the imprisonment of criminals because their right to liberty is absolute? Or that they must not be fined because their right to property is absolute? It is the contention of many conservatives (though not all; most Catholic conservatives are NOT in favor of capital punishment precisely because of your implicit criticism) that there are crimes for which the right to life itself is forfeited, usually for the deliberate and malicious deprivation of the right to life of another. Treason and child rape frequently come up as well, properly so in my opinion.
As for abortion clinic bombings, they also are a violation of the law. The principled pro-life conservative, I think, sees these in a similar fashion to the way that a principled abolitionist would have seen the crusade of John Brown. While the broad aim may be the same, the tactics pursued by Brown or by any of the abortion-clinic bombers (especially those that deliberately killed abortionists) damage the very rule of law that makes civil society possible. Civil society, in turn, is the only thing that makes judgements such as that which holds that infanticide is wrong possible.
“there’s simply no logical way that someone can be justified in killing or harming another individual for doing something that is legal, no matter how much they think it shouldn’t be allowed.”
Oh the irony. This was given as an argument against killing a person who kills babies for a living.
But try this thought experiment…
Ask yourself if the same applies to an abortion doctor. Read the statement again:
“there’s simply no logical way that [an abortion doctor] can be justified in killing or harming [a developing baby] for doing something that is legal, no matter how much they think [the baby’s development] shouldn’t be allowed.”
Anyone remember Roe v Wade? That case essentially did exactly the above. It made a logical argument to justify the killing of a developing baby… for doing nothing more than developing inside the womb of a woman (which I believe is legal, yes?)… for any reason a woman chose for not allowing that baby to continue to develop.
It may seem illogical to justify the murder of an abortion doctor, but at the same time, is it not also just as illogical to justify the murder of a developing baby?
Ask ~50% of this nation and they would respond by telling you that it is completely logical to justify murdering a developing baby.
So, again, just look at the irony of our culture. We find it completely logical to justify the murder of hundreds of thousands of babies each year, but we are horrified by people who logically justify the murder of the people who murder babies.
Look at the statement again:
“there’s simply no logical way that someone can be justified in killing or harming another individual for doing something that is legal, no matter how much they think it shouldn’t be allowed.”
This statement was given as an argument against killing an abortion doctor, but it actually is a perfect argument against the horrible practice of abortion itself.
There is simply no logical way that a woman can be justified in killing or harming her baby for the legal act of developing inside her womb, no matter how much the woman thinks that development should not be allowed.
Taking that statement further, this means that since abortion is legal in this country, then we essentially have made it illegal for a baby to develop inside the womb of a woman? If there is no logical way to justify murder for a legal act, then that must mean that a child developing inside the womb of a mother is considered an illegal act in this nation. Because how else does one logically justify the murder of a developing child?
I hope this case goes a long way to show the pro-abortion people how illogical and downright despicable is their justification for abortion.
I also agree with this…
“Murdering a grown man is just as bad as murdering babies in the womb. If you’re pro-life you have to believe that, otherwise you’re making the same mis-judgement that the abortionist does; dehumanizing the other to justify murdering them.”
…but I would state it another way:
Murdering babies in the womb is just as bad as murdering a grown man.
And that is the point to this. The defense in this case sets up justifying the murder of a grown man based on the fact that the grown man murders babies in the womb. The response to that justification is to say that murdering him is no better than his actions of murdering babies. Which is entirely correct.
BUT, if his justification for murdering the abortion doctor is ruled to be wrong, then it sets it up to say that a woman’s justification for murdering her baby is wrong as well. Afterall, a baby is even more innocent than an abortion doctor, correct?
You would have to be a pretty despicable human being to say that the murder of an abortion doctor is wrong, but the murder of a baby is completely justified.
This is also well said:
He should be able to put on any defense he wants, it will be rejected by the jury more than likely. It is not that surprising though. The guy believes that children were being killed in that clinic which was true. Abortion is legal but what Tiller was doing was not necessarily legal at all.
He had not been convicted of a crime but it was pretty well known that he was killing children in the birth canal that DEFINITELY would have lived outside of the womb. He lied about it and was protected by the pro-abortion people like Sebelius.
Tilller’s murder is a symptom of a larger problem, the people we have elected to protect our rights and that of the unborn are playing politics, not the defendant here. They failed to act on eyewitness reports of gruesome cases of infanticide. This guy took the law into his own hands but if his defense allows the truth to be exposed about what was going on in that clinic society will be served by this trial.
We Conservatives have been so programmed by the media to be ashamed of our pro-life positions we run away from any hint of controversy. We should speak out about against Tiller and his ilk without fear of being accused of siding with his murderer.
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 11, 2010 09:18 PM
And here it is stated a different way, but no less wrong than the first time:
There’s no way within the logic of a legal regime it can be legal to kill someone for doing something that is legal.
Wrong. If we consider that a baby developing within the womb of a woman is legal, then we have already made a logical argument in our “legal regime” to justify the murder of the baby for “doing something that is legal”.
The legality of abortion itself puts the lie to the statement. Ironically, if our society can make a legal argument for killing a baby for doing nothing more than the legal act of developing inside a woman’s womb, then why can’t the same ‘logic’ be used to justify killing an abortion doctor for doing the legal act of killing babies (performing abortions)?
I am not arguing in favor of the innocence of Tiller’s murderer, I am simply using the same legal argument that justifies and allows a woman to kill her baby.
For pro-lifers to be consistent, they should be against both abortion and the murder of those who perform abortions. However, ironically, for pro-abortionists to be consistent, they should be in favor of both abortion and the murder of those who perform abortions. Defending abortion means defending the murder of those who perform abortions. Ironic, huh?
This is an important point to remember in this case:
For those of you who claim what Tiller was doing was legal, it would be more accurate to say he was never CONVICTED, he was charged with 19 counts of performing illegal abortions. Late term abortions in Kansas are supposed to be done only when the mother’s life is in jeopardy (a situation that modern medicine has all but eliminated). The rule is you are supposed to get an independent second opinion and Tiller was using a doctor with whom he had a financial relationship with. He was basically skirting the law to kill viable babies.
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 11, 2010 09:30 PM
If the concept of”shocking to the conscience” is allowed to be applied to the ‘fetuses’ in this case and the procedure is shown to the jury, there is no way this guy gets convicted.Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at January 11, 2010 08:37 PM
Before my story: to be clear, people who kill abortionists – or unborn children – are E V I L.
In the late 80s, thousands and thousands of people performed rescue missions, operations where 100s of people would nonviolently sit in front of an abortion clinic door and cimply shut it down for the day, at the same time other prolifers offer help with the pregnancy to the women waiting. The reasoning is based on the statistic is that a certain percent of women who are unable to have an abortion on the day it’s scheduled, for ANY reason, will never return and will have the child. (Some – not all – turned away apparently take it as a “sign” or whatever – mostly because they were ambivalent about it in the first place. )
Participated in a number of these; went to jail 5 times.
In one, the judge allowed this defense (“necessity defense,” i.e. we had to break the law to try to save lives). It was a three week, extremely interesting trial for the 48 of us and we were aquitted of trespassing because we were allowed to argue necessity, and – because we went limp on arrest – found guilty of resisting arrest. Should’ve walked – really really slowly – to the van. But babies were saved.
Posted by: female prolifer what sat in front of clinics in the 80s at January 11, 2010 09:32 PM
people were always going to agree with Roeder’s ‘logic’.
This is obviously said with a negative connotation. Considering ~50% of the nation — including the majority of the US Supreme Court — agrees with the ‘logic’ of women who chose to have their developing babies murdered, I don’t see the difference. Roeder’s ‘logic’ actually is less illogical than the ‘logic’ women use to justify murdering their developing babies. Yet, there seems to be more outrage over Roeder killing an abortion doctor than there is for women who choose to kill their babies.
Two ‘wrongs’ do not make a ‘right’, but, that said…
I agree this was unjustified, but he should be able to choose any defense he wants. If KSM can justify 9/11 for whatever reason on the public dime, so should this guy.
Posted by: Ben at January 11, 2010 09:40 PM
It is a farce that KSM is being allowed to have a criminal trial, but, if we are going to go forward with that, then it would be an even bigger farce to not also allow Roeder the same rights that a foreign terrorist is being given. Ideally, though, KSM would be in a military tribunal and the example would then not be applicable.
This is exactly correct, but people are still missing the point:
Bad precedent, very bad indeed. If it hasn’t been stated already in the comments (hey, I’m lazy and self-absorbed): making way for sharia (mostly) and legal precedent for terrorists (not so much but an outside possibility) in 3…2…1…
Posted by: unknown jane at January 11, 2010 09:52 PM
Um, “bad precedent”? The bad precedent was Roe v Wade, which stated that a woman can murder her developing child and justify it for any reason whatsoever. That precedent was set in 1973. As such, Roe v Wade is the legal precedent for Islamic Sharia Law and legal rights for terrorists.
People are worried that this case will set bad precedent, when, in fact, the legality of abortion via Roe v Wade set the bad precedent, about which they are so worried, back in 1973. You’re 37 years late, people.
Oy. Here we go again. And with people still getting the facts incorrect:
…Kill the doctors who do a legal procedure, even if you don’t agree with it?
Partial birth abortion – the kind Tiller was infamous for – was/is explicitly illegal in Kansas.
Facts – are sometimes important.
Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at January 13, 2010 12:08 PM
People continue to incorrectly say that what Tiller was doing was “perfectly legal”. No, it was not. They reference the fact that he has never been convicted. Well, true, he has not been convicted. But that is because he had friends in high places, ie Kathleen Sebelius. This is similar to Eric Holder allowing the Black Panthers to not get convicted. This is also similar to Planned Parenthoods across the nation participating in illegal activity, as this commenter notes:
Tiller was acquitted, but what he was doing was *not* lawful. The government failed to enforce the law. Anyone who doesn’t see that abortion clinics are getting a huge pass in their practices is being a naive, foolish moron. They falsify records, instruct their patients to lie, fail to report incest and rape, the list is endless. Tiller was performing late term abortions. He was committing INFANTICIDE. Even a pro-abortion person would admit when you stab the head of a full-term child in the birth canal a murder is being committed. He would doctor up the records to skirt the law. If the defense can prove that then I feel they have a case. I am not saying the guy should get off scott free either.
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 13, 2010 11:34 AM
This is also similar to ACORN not having been convicted of anything (yet). In all these cases, illegal activity is occurring. BUT, they are not convicted due to their political friends in high places protecting their activity. This Roeder guy saw that we are no longer a nation of laws (*cough* illegal immigration *cough* Amnesty *cough*), and took the law into his own hands. Now, I think we all agree that what Roeder did is illegal and wrong, but some people seem to be defending Tiller by saying he was completely legally correct in his actions at his abortion clinic. Not so. And it would be nice if these people would stop muddying the waters of this case by only choosing the facts they want to present to back up their biased (ie pro-choice) opinions.
Well said here:
“When the KSM trial comes up and he’s allowed to put on a similar defense (“the infidels needed killing because they were killing Muslims”) and a lot of Roeder’s supporters (or at least supporters of his legal claim) are going to be outrageously outraged.”
I won’t be outraged, I fully expect KSM to say that. If he can make the case that 3000 (mostly civilian) people who were just going to work on 9/11 were directly responsible for Muslims being killed then let them try.
The guy who killed Tiller knew he was killing innocent children, as the victim himself made no bones about it. He claimed it was “legal” because he got another doctor to lie for him that the lives of the mothers were in danger. Something that rarely, if ever occurs today given current medical science. If those woman now come forward and deny that (some already have from what I understand) then we have a situation where infanticide was being committed.
But let’s cut the nonsense, we know that it was and Tiller’s liberal protectors know as well. They are OK with it. A society that is not willing to stand up for innocent babies is not worth much is it? Send the killer to the gas chamber if need be, but we shouldn’t let the opportunity to expose what Tiller was doing pass by.
Posted by: Ken Royall at January 13, 2010 12:11 PM
Someone in the comments referenced this excellent article by Jack Cashill at The American Thinker: How the Media Have Mangled the Pro-Life Story
Major media reporting gave credence to the Tiller eulogists. Almost universally, the media claimed that whether one liked Tiller’s practice or not, he was following Kansas law.
I knew otherwise. Living in Kansas City, I had been asked first by Kansans for Life and later by Focus on the Family to chronicle Tiller’s thoroughgoing subversion of the rule of law. The truth was there for anyone to see.
For the six years that she governed the state, current Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius enabled Tiller to flout the state’s tough abortion laws and get away with it. With Sebelius’s help, Tiller turned this reddest of red states into the late-term abortion capital of the world.
On Tiller’s web site, he boasted of having aborted 60,000-plus “fetuses over 24 weeks.” In 2008, Tiller’s last full year of operation, 98 percent of the late-term abortions performed in Kansas were performed on women from out of the state or out of the country.
Throughout Sebelius’s tenure, the media refused to ask a basic question: Did Kansas become the world’s abortion capital because it had uniquely liberal abortion laws? Or did it maintain this status because the governor was uniquely resistant to the law’s enforcement? The answer was inarguably the latter.
In Kansas, an abortion can be performed on a baby capable of living outside the womb only if the pregnancy would cause the mother to die or suffer “a severe and irreversible impairment to a major bodily function.” Tiller ignored the law.
As the Kansas state reports show, in the last ten years of Tiller’s practice, not one single late term abortion was performed to save the life of the mother. This life-saving hokum was pure liberal media myth.
The reports also show that of the 192 late term abortions on healthy babies performed in 2008, none were performed for a legitimate “medical emergency.” Every single late-term abortion where there was no fetal anomaly (and anomalies included twins and cleft palates) involved a temporary mental health diagnosis — made, of course, by Tiller, who was no one’s idea of a mental health expert.
These “irreversible impairments” included anxiety about missing a prom, a rodeo, or even a rock concert.
To keep his practice alive, Tiller had learned to game the system. His money worked well enough until Republican Phill Kline was elected Kansas Attorney General in 2002 and attempted to enforce the law, which he had helped to write as a legislator.
Sebelius engineered the deal that kept Tiller in business. She persuaded Paul Morrison, the popular Republican district attorney of the state’s most affluent county, to switch parties and run against Kline.
With Tiller’s massive financial backing behind him — some $1.2 million indirect dollars — and the full-throated support of the local media, Morrison ousted the “theocrat” Kline and killed the case that Kline had brought against Tiller.
In shooting Tiller, Roeder managed to alchemize the unholy dross of this corrupt late-term abortionist into martyr’s gold. In the entirely apt words of Dan McLaughlin, “Even before anything was known about Roeder, the left side of the blogosphere reacted to Dr. Tiller’s murder as if it was Christmas morning and they just got a pony.”
The pro-life movement had a new poster boy.
Of course, go to the blog I linked above and they continue to say that Tiller’s abortion were “legal”. And continue to *not* provide the key facts refuting their bias. Brilliant. Just gotta love the integrity of social liberals.
Heh, this is a great comeback to someone who was annoyed that people were discussing the “imminent danger” defense and how it could be used were Tiller to be killed at the abortion clinic instead of at the church:
Where [do] you clowns get off thinking the killing is all just a matter of timing. . .
I dunno. . . maybe Section X of Blackmun’s majority decision from Roe v. Wade?
Posted by: MikeO at January 13, 2010 01:54 PM
Bingo. This goes back to what I have stated numerous times in this post: Roe v Wade already set the bad precedent. The legality of abortion in this nation is the illogical justification for murder. Roe v Wade set the precedent to say that murder of a person performing a legal activity in this nation is justified for any reason whatsoever. Unless, of course, people are going to say that “developing in the womb of a woman” is now an illegal activity.
And again, I say that justifying the murder of a man who murders babies by saying that it will stop the future murder of babies is a lot less illogical than justifying the murder of a baby by saying that it will allow a woman to go to her prom or a rock concert. Yet, that is the law of the land here in America. The Left whines about “no blood for oil!!!11ty!!!”, yet they have no problem with killing babies for dances and rock concerts. Brilliant.
Again, there is more outrage over the murder of a murderer than there is about the murder of millions of babies.
“…[L]ife is a fundamental issue. Once the nation — and some would say we’re there — once the nation has thrown out the whole concept of the sanctity of life, then every other value and tenet of morality is weakened dramatically.” —Rush Limbaugh, June 5, 2009
I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. So, the question is: Will Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, be the one who helps to return this country back to being a nation respecting the sanctity of human life by being one of a majority of Justices agreeing to overturn Roe v Wade, thus allowing the people of the United States of America to vote, in each of their respective States, on the legality of murdering babies?
Rush makes a pretty compelling argument that Judge Sonia Sotomayor may, in fact, be Pro-Life: All the Latest on Sonia Sotomayor
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, even more has been learned about Sonia Sotomayor and abortion. And what we have learned here is from a speech that she gave in June 2001, eight years ago, in which she commends liberal lawsuits on abortion, illegal immigration, and welfare reform. Here’s what she said. Now, I know they’re going to climb on me for saying this. She really writes poorly, and people are acknowledging this. There were a couple stories yesterday that it’s amazing how poorly written her opinions are compared to other appellate judges who are all great writers. In fact, it’s one of the trademarks of an appellate judge, Supreme Court justice, is their brilliant writing. So I’ll just read this passage from the speech of Judge Sotomayor in June of 2001.
“In 1996, Congress prohibited lawyers receiving federal legal services money from taking on class-action lawsuits or lawsuits involving abortion, illegal immigration, or welfare reform. Commendably –” so she agrees with that “– commendably, I know Brooklyn law school’s clinical programs have redoubled their efforts to help address the need created by this legislation. These efforts and the volunteer efforts of other law schools, bar groups and lawyers and private law firms are not enough. The need is very great.” She is commending Congress prohibiting lawyers receiving federal legal service money from taking on lawsuits involving abortion. Now, what that means is that she agrees that federal money should not be used to pay lawyers who take on abortion cases. Now, what are we to conclude from this? Well, it’s just more confusion. It just leads to more confusion. Now, here is a woman with rich Latina, wise life experiences, by her own admission multiple times in her life, saying she doesn’t think it’s right for lawyers filing suits on abortion to get federal money to do it.
Now, that would make one tend to think that she thinks one of two things: That the government ought have nothing to say about it via their money, and secondly, if these lawyers want to go ahead and file abortion cases then find the clients to pay up. Don’t ask the government to do it. She is a devout Catholic. She is a devout Catholic. And, folks, I’m telling you the only evidence — and it isn’t evidence — the only evidence we have that she is pro-Roe v. Wade, pro-abortion, is that Obama has assured us. But Obama has said he didn’t talk to her and on her questionnaire that she submitted yesterday she said she wasn’t asked specifically about it. But yet Obama knows specifically, but she says she hasn’t said specifically or even been asked specifically. So I don’t know. I know a lot of you people think this is nuts because you think that Obama would not nominate anybody to the court who was not pro-Roe v. Wade or pro-abortion. But just in a general sense I could agree and understand that, but what if he doesn’t really know? What if he’s just assuming? If he knows, somebody’s lying about them having talked about it, because she says in her questionnaire that she hasn’t. Nor was she asked, directly or indirectly.
Now, it could well be that she’s told, you know, some colleague somewhere who told an Obama White House official, don’t worry about it. She didn’t admit that in questionnaire. She said that didn’t happen. I also saw in a news story that she has spoken highly of Justice Scalia, another Catholic on the US Supreme Court who, of course, thinks Roe v. Wade is horrendously bad constitutional law. Justice Scalia, in fact, in an abortion case — I’ll never forget, give you an example of just how great a writer and thinker Scalia is, but how all of these appellate judges, most of them are really, really good writers. You have to be, when you’re going to explain your opinion and so forth, you’ve got to be a good writer, not just in legalese, but in common sense language as well. And he said from the case that had just been decided, it was apparent to him that, “The mansion that is abortion rights law will have to be torn down doorjamb by doorjamb.”
Now, nobody talks that way. If you go to a party and you’re talking about abortion, nobody is going to say, “You know what, abortion’s like a mansion, and we’re going to have to end it by tearing it apart doorjamb by doorjamb,” but people do write that way. Good writers have a flair for writing unique things. Scalia does. It’s kind of like golf announcing on TV. I play golf and if I make par, I’ll say, “That’s four,” or “That’s a par,” but I will not say, “I authored a par.” Golf announcers will say, “Tiger Woods authored a par.” If Tiger Woods bogeys a hole, they will say, “And he puts a blemish on the scorecard with a five.” We who play golf do not say, after a bogey, “Well, there’s a blemish on my card.” We shout the F-bomb!
RUSH: From the New York Daily News today:
“Dawn Cardi looms very large in the life of Sonia Sotomayor. She constantly refers to her in speeches as her watchdog to make sure she is doing the right thing.”
And then there’s a web link here about Sotomayor sharing joy with her best friend, and the Daily News headline, this is from Friday, May 29th:
“‘Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor ‘Open,’ Will Follow Law on Abortion Issue, Says Friend.’ — Sonia Sotomayor has never made a major ruling on the issue of abortion –“
this we know,
“– and she remains mum about whether she believes in a woman’s right to choose. Sotomayor understands how difficult it is for a woman to decide whether to have an abortion and she knows women who have struggled with that choice, a longtime friend told the Daily News. ‘Years ago, we spoke about abortion, about how difficult a choice it is,’ Dawn Cardi, a lawyer and one of Sotomayor’s closest friends, told the News Friday. ‘It’s a very, very difficult choice, and (we discussed) how difficult it must be for a woman who has to make that choice,’ Cardi recalled. … Asked directly if Sotomayor believes a woman has a right to choose an abortion, Cardi replied, ‘She will follow what she thinks is the law on that, and her personal beliefs will not interfere with that analysis because my view of her is that she does not allow her personal beliefs to interfere with her analysis of legal issues.”
Now, now, now, she clearly does. She has said that her personal beliefs impact her decisions because she said that judges, appellate judges make policy. Now, the reason why I think something’s going on here, Sotomayor is a liberal. She faces no problem being confirmed. She’s got a majority of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, a majority of Democrats in the Senate. Most libs are eager to tell you about their Roe v. Wade beliefs, their abortion beliefs. She would not. Her confirmation would not suffer had it been known over the years what her opinion on this was and yet she’s gone to great lengths to keep it quiet. She has gone to great lengths, ladies and gentlemen, to have it an open question. We know what she thinks of affirmative action. We know what she thinks of a lot of other public issues by virtue of her rulings and what she’s written. But on this one issue, we don’t know. And I would think that if, for example, she is pro-life, she’s probably calculating that could do more harm to her than by admitting she’s pro-choice. Am I correct? She’s dealing with liberals here that are going to vote on her. So no pain, no harm. She might get some grief about telegraphing the way she’s going to rule on an issue, and I know that no nominee comes out and says what they think about this. But she hasn’t said when she thinks about it ever.
My instincts tell me that it’s because people who are her friends on other issues might not appreciate what she really thinks about abortion. As I have continued to delve into this, as I have continued to investigate and research this and try to get to the quick, try to get to the soul of this, where she comes down on it, I have to say that there’s a better than 50-50 shot she’s pro-life. She’s Catholic. I know that some Catholics are pro-choice, don’t misunderstand, Puerto Rican Catholic, they’re devout. My gut instinct tells me that all the factors are there. It certainly could not hurt her with her own people for it to be known. It could only harm her with her own people if she’s pro-life and she’s staying mum on it, zipped lips.
So I can’t say for sure, but it sure seems to me that it’s — well, you know, I’ve said that life is such an important issue. If I learned, could be relatively certain and assured that she thinks Roe is bad constitutional law and is a pro-life individual, you’d have to stop and consider maybe supporting that. You can get past the racism and bigotry and other things, but life is a fundamental issue. Once the nation — and some would say we’re there — once the nation has thrown out the whole concept of the sanctity of life, then every other value and tenet of morality is weakened dramatically. So I know it would be controversial, but I could see being in favor of this nomination were she pro-life. Certainly could.