What happens when an evangelical Christian breaks that pesky commandment about lying?

I'm guessing, in the case of Harriet Miers, the discovery that there is documentation she very much supported a proposed 1989 amendment to ban all abortions except those that put a mother's life in imminent risk of death, it will mean that the Repubevangelical senators and fundamentalist christotheocrats will suddenly find Miers to be eminently qualified to join the Supremes. This information just adds to the White House's wink & nudge fun with fundies game. Mind you, the most telling part about the discovery of these documents is the fact that just the other day, the devout Ms. Miers lied to Chuck Schumer when discussing the subject of abortion

"No, nobody knows my views on Roe v. Wade. No one can speak for me on Roe v. Wade."

This may be another misunderstanding between Miers and a senator in the discussion of constitutional law. She's been granted some latitude because she was not a constitutional lawyer and is far from the constitutional law expert one would expect of a Supreme Court Justice. Mind you, one has to wonder why she would have requested not to be considered as a possible replacement for O'Connor back in July but suddenly felt qualified and accepted a nomination after Rehnquist died? How much did she and Dubya discuss the possibility of her appointment to the Supreme Court prior to him nominating her and what additional experience in constitutional law did she gain in the interim?

The Preznit is pushing for her confirmation in time to hear Ayotte v PP of Northern New England - a proposed parental notification law the bill sponsor intentionally drafted without any health exception language

“We didn’t mistakenly forget to put in a health exception. We purposely crafted a bill without an exception,” said Fran Wendelboe, R-New Hampton.

She said a health exception would be an “open door.”

“It would pretty much mean you would have no parental notice at all. Because who makes the decision about what is a health exception? The abortionist, who is already 100 percent gung-ho to do an abortion,” she said. [Nashua Telegraph]

Yes, because the inaccurately named "pro-lifers" would much rather see women suffer the potentially life threatening or permanently disabling consequences of delaying anything that would terminate a pregnancy while physicians are frantically trying to reach parents to get permission to treat their daughters. We can't afford to give them that opportunity and need to ensure that a justice's personal religious beliefs and preferences regarding what they consider moral does not affect their rulings since they're not ruling on religious doctrine, they're ruling on secular law.

Tags: privacy; Supreme Court; politics; religion; something being imposed on the public; something else being imposed on the public; that code word for gay or Jew or whoever the fundies are hating on this week; abortion; reproductive rights

Sphere: Related Content