{"id":1886,"date":"2005-10-18T13:21:23","date_gmt":"2005-10-18T20:21:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=1886"},"modified":"2005-10-18T13:21:23","modified_gmt":"2005-10-18T20:21:23","slug":"a-little-questionnaire-from-1989","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=1886","title":{"rendered":"A little questionnaire from 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"

I had already come to the conclusion that Miers would more than likely turn out to be no<\/strong> friend of women’s reproductive rights and privacy a few of weeks ago. Given all the blurbs in the MSM and the blogosphere of her donating to anti-choice groups, and some conservative leaders and pundits coming out and saying they “know” what she believes, and are happy with it. But now after she has turned in a candidate questionnaire (from back in 1989, while she was a candidate for Dallas city council) to the Judiciary Committee<\/strong>, <\/a>I believe my conclusion and serious concerns over the Miers’ nomination have been re-affirmed. This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “remember the eighties<\/em>?” Just one more reason for me to forget them.<\/p>\n

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.<\/p>\n

As a candidate for the Dallas city council, Miers also signaled support for the overall agenda of Texans United for Life — agreeing she would support legislation restricting abortions if the Supreme Court ruled that states could ban abortions and would participate in “pro-life rallies and special events.”<\/p>\n

Miers made her views known in a candidate questionnaire the White House submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is expected to hold hearings on her Supreme Court nomination next month. The one-page questionnaire was filled out, but unsigned, although the Bush administration affirmed its authenticity.<\/p>\n

“The answers clearly reflect that Harriet Miers is opposed to Roe v. Wade,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat and only woman on the Judiciary Committee. “This raises very serious concerns about her ability to fairly apply the law without bias in this regard. It will be my intention to question her very carefully about these issues.”[…]<\/p>\n

That view was echoed at the White House where presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said that Miers answered the questions as a candidate during the course of a campaign.<\/p>\n

“The role of a judge is very different from the role of a candidate or a political officeholder,” McClellan said.<\/p>\n

“Harriet Miers, just like Chief Justice (John) Roberts, recognizes that personal views and ideology and religion have no role to play when it comes to making decisions on the bench,” he said. “Your role as a judge is to look at all the facts and look at the law and apply the law to that case.”[…]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And on that little questionnaire, Miers had to answer this interesting yet very disturbing question….<\/p>\n

“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.<\/p>\n

Miers checked “yes<\/strong>” 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.<\/p>\n

The swing vote<\/strong><\/p>\n

[…]The Texans United for Life questionnaire is additional evidence of how Miers feels about abortion, with some of her supporters assuring conservatives that they believe she would overturn the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.<\/p>\n

Miers also bought a $150 ticket to a Texans United for Life dinner in 1989 and took a leadership role in trying to get the American Bar Association to reconsider its abortion-rights position in 1993.<\/p>\n

No assurances on Roe<\/strong><\/p>\n

Senators say Miers has insisted that she has not given anyone any assurances that she would overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance.<\/p>\n

“She said nobody knows my views on Roe v. Wade. Nobody can speak for me on Roe v. Wade,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, on Monday, referring to the case that guaranteed women’s constitutional right to an abortion, setting a legal precedent that abortion foes have been trying to overturn ever since.<\/p>\n

In the questionnaire that she turned in the Judiciary Committee, Miers answered “no” to questions asking whether anyone during the nomination process discussed specific cases or legal issues with her to get an assurance on her positions. She also answered “no” to whether she told anyone how she might rule if confirmed.[…]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This questionnaire may have been filled out back in 1989, but this still raises some issues (and worries) concerning the future of Roe<\/em> and even Griswold<\/em> once Miers takes O’Connor’s place–the precious<\/em> “swing-vote” seat. Here’s a copy<\/strong><\/a> of the questionnaire from RedState.Org<\/em>. Perhaps this was an attempt by the Bush White House to soothe some of the concerns of its anti-choice conservative base and it’s leaders. And yet with things like this coming out about Miers’ past anti-choice activism, some anti-choice conservative-wingnut leaders and pundits are still pissed about her nomination. Weird. But maybe some will now be slap-happy about her nomination, while I and others will continue to worry about the future of the SCOTUS, and reproductive rights and privacy. Sigh…<\/em><\/p>\n

**<\/strong>Responses from pro-reproductive-rights groups: Here’s NARAL Pro-Choice America’s statement<\/strong><\/a>, along with Feminist Majority’s<\/strong><\/a>, and Planned Parenthood’s<\/a><\/strong> on Miers and the 1989 questionnaire.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I had already come to the conclusion that Miers would more than likely turn out to be no friend of women’s reproductive rights and privacy a few of weeks ago. Given all the blurbs in the MSM and the blogosphere … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,111],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1886","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abortion-reproductive-rights","category-supreme-court-issues"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1886","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/13"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1886"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1886\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}