Wow. Ask a rhetorical blog question…
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.
Well, that pretty much answers my question, “Harriet, Harriet, quite contrary, yet how will you vote on Roe?”, now, doesn’t it? I wonder how the White House is going to spin this one into “gee, we have no idea how she will vote on Roe / but trust us, she’s exactly the judge Jesus would want (wink wink, nudge nudge” territory…
“A candidate taking a political position in the course of a campaign is different from the role of a judge making a ruling in the judicial process.” said Jim Dyke, a White House spokesman.
Rrright… Ladies & gentlemen, if you elect me to the exalted post of Grand High Poohbah, I swear I will do everything in my power ensure that only a woman in imminent mortal danger of death itself can get an abortion… but if I become a judge, you can expect me to make an absolutely dispassionate fair decision in any abortion case.
Who do you believe? The White House, or your own lyin’ eyes?