I think it is amazing that more is not said about her decision to renounce Roe vs Wade, since she was the one who defined the legalization of abortion. She says now that she regrets it and thinks abortion is wrong. I wonder often how many women, in later years, have grave misgivings and sadness about having had an abortion. I have found, as a woman in her 7th decade, that there are things from my youth I certainly regret. I am happy to say, abortion is not one of them. I have to share a letter with you from a man I have had an ongoing discussion with regarding Jewish faith and abortion. Please note the ending statements. It is quite telling, don't you think. Here's his response to my letter:
Yes, there are Jews that are against abortion but it is not from true Jewish teachings. You should know that their is clearly no soul till birth or so many days after depending on which Jewish beliefs are followed.
The soul is what makes humans uniquely different from any other animal - so while some Jews like emotional Christians who are ignorant of Christian teachings (same issue and nothing in Christian bible about abortion being wrong), use emotional terms like unborn etc, all there is, is a souless fetus.
I have a very extensive additional research report on Jewish views of abortion that basically supports what I discuss on website. But I just haven't had time to digest in summarize it since its just not a major interest of mine.
Bottom line is it should be up to the women based on HER beliefs, not some old men in Washington restricting a women's right to choose again based on HER beliefs not yours, mine or laws. Clearly in my view there is nothing wrong from a Christian biblical view which I have researched the most over the decades. But Jewish view seems similar and even more clear that their is no soul till birth or various days after.
In my view if a women can not support another child, she has a moral duty NOT to give birth. I don't want to pay via welfare and taxes for someone else who wasn't responsible enough to either give up for adoption (best choice) or abort if isn't emotionally or financially able to provide. But of course she has the right to make her own decision, but don't expect me to pay for it via taxes/welfare.
WASHINGTON — While Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s views on abortion triggered intense debate on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, there is no mistaking where his wife stands: Jane Sullivan Roberts, a lawyer, is ardently against abortion.
A Roman Catholic like her husband, Jane Roberts has been deeply involved in the antiabortion movement. She provides her name, money and professional advice to a small Washington organization — Feminists for Life of America — that offers counseling and educational programs. The group has filed legal briefs before the high court challenging the constitutionality of abortion.
A spouse's views normally are not considered relevant in weighing someone's job suitability. But abortion is likely to figure prominently in the Senate debate over John Roberts' nomination. And with his position on the issue unclear, abortion rights supporters expressed concern Wednesday that his wife's views might suggest he also embraced efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
"It's unclear how all this will affect her husband," said Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the Center for American Progress, a liberal public policy group. "It's possible that he would have a different view than her. It's just that in the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."
Asked to discuss her role with Feminists for Life, Jane Roberts said in an e-mail to the Los Angeles Times: "Thanks for your inquiry. At this time, however, I would like to decline your invitation to talk."
Advocacy groups on both sides of the issue were reacting strongly Wednesday to President Bush's first Supreme Court nomination.
The president of the antiabortion group Operation Rescue, Troy Newman, said: "We pray that Roberts will be swiftly confirmed."
The president of the National Organization for Women, Kim Gandy, warned that of the high court candidates considered by Bush, Roberts was one of the most extreme when it came to the question of overturning the Roe vs. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion.
Feminists for Life has sponsored a national advertising campaign aimed at ending abortion in America. One of its mission statements proclaims: "Abortion is a reflection that we have not met the needs of women. Women deserve better than abortion."
Jane Roberts was a volunteer member of Feminists for Life's board of directors from 1995 to 1999. She has provided legal assistance to the group and been recognized as a contributor who donated from $1,000 to $2,500.
The president of Feminists for Life, Serrin M. Foster, said Roberts maintained her ties by advising the group on how to draw up incorporation and not-for-profit papers.
She also has written for the group's newsletter, Foster said, including an article about adoption. Roberts and her husband have adopted two children.
"She's a brilliant attorney, and we're really proud that she lent her legal services to us to help serve the needs of women," Foster said. "She was a very good board member. She was invaluable as an attorney for us."
Foster said that she had met John Roberts, who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, but that the judge had not been involved with Feminists for Life.
Judge Roberts' public positions on abortion and Roe vs. Wade appear to be inconsistent.
In 1990, as the principal deputy solicitor general in President George H.W. Bush's administration, Roberts wrote a legal brief for the Supreme Court in a case regarding federal funding for abortion providers. "We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled," Roberts wrote.
His brief added: "The [Supreme] Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion … finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution."
But during the 2003 Senate confirmation hearings on his appellate court nomination, Roberts took the position that abortion rights were no longer debatable.
"Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land," he told lawmakers. "There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."
But abortion rights groups are convinced that Roberts is opposed to abortion.
"He's absolutely anti-Roe," Gandy said. "He believes it was wrongly decided and should be reversed." Asked then why Roberts two years ago proclaimed Roe vs. Wade a "settled" issue, Gandy responded: "You have to say that. You can't get on the court without saying you will follow legal precedent. All the most extreme nominees say that. You can't even take the oath of office [unless] you say that."
Jane Roberts graduated magna cum laude from the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., in 1976. In 1984, she graduated cum laude from the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington.
She practices and is a partner with the Washington firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw and Pittman, mostly concentrating on the firm's communications and global sourcing groups.
A close friend characterized her as an "extremely, extremely devout Catholic" who had enjoyed her antiabortion advocacy.
The Catholic News Service in Washington, which praised Judge Roberts and cited his government brief in 1990 challenging Roe vs. Wade, also spoke kindly of Jane Roberts.
"She has been active in Feminists for Life, and is a member of the board of governors of the John Carroll Society, a Catholic lay organization that sponsors the annual Washington archdiocesan Red Mass before the opening of the Supreme Court term," the news service said.
It also pointed out that if John Rogers were to be elevated to the Supreme Court, he would be the fourth Catholic justice on the current court, along with Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.
Before Jane Roberts joined the board of Feminists for Life, the organization filed amicus briefs on abortion with the Supreme Court. Records show that the group filed briefs supporting the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, a law aimed at limiting the right to abortions, particularly for minors.
Several antiabortion groups including Feminists for Life also filed a brief in support of the right of abortion protesters to picket a Virginia women's health clinic. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said the courts did not have the authority to limit protesters' access to such clinics.
And Feminists for Life filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court in support of laws in Ohio and Missouri that attempted to limit the rights to an abortion under Roe vs. Wade.
*
Times staff writers Walter F. Roche Jr. and Benjamin Weyl in Washington contributed to this report.
Excuse me....before Roe vs Wade we all had...
to hear you out there lobbying for the death of babies. You got your wish. To the tune of 1.2 million a year. It was your right, and boy are you exercising it. So be it. Now the tables have turned, and it is OUR right to lobby once again to stop the slaughter. It is still a free country after all, and as long as it is...there will be a lobby against the wholesale slaughter of innocent children...any child. If it irritates you so much that someone would be concerned about 1.2 million babies being killed every year in this country, over 2000 a day, don't read a post you know is about being pro life. Simple fix really.
How many decisions do you need
You are grasping at straws that do not even exist. You are riding for a fall. It ain't happenin'.
Judge Roberts and Roe vs Wade
I, too, am pro choice and I can remember when I was still in high school, there was no right of termination of pregnancy..It was left up to each state to decide and NY state did not allow a woman to choose. I remember Congresswoman, Bella Abzug, was one of the strongest voices for women back then..That, I guess, is what got me into politics to the max, cause none of my sisters are political, nor my mother..They vote democrat and sure agree with me on issues but I am the one who marches and protests, etc, LOL. I think back in about 1973, I was astonished that a woman had no right over her body, no decisions about her body..That seared my brain, I guess. Then, thankfully the Supreme Court understood a woman has a right to decide about her body..I think if Roe vs Wade was ever overturned, we would have women in the streets, and also some men who have a higher consciousness and understand the implications of overturning Roe vs Wade. The majority of Americans want to leave the decision alone, so hopefully the Supreme Court will leave it alone..I do not believe in abortion at late stages, only in case of a woman's health, however, in the first four months, I believe a woman should decide and, if it is wrong, the woman will explain it to her maker..far be it for me to judge, ya know?
Roe vs . Wade is a decision handed down...
by the Supreme Court invalidating a state law which made abortion illegal. At that time many states had an abortion law on the books. And from that all abortion law was abolished. The Constitution of this country clearly states that only the legislative branch can enact law. The Supreme Court superceded that and made law. Rowe vs. Wade is unconstitutional on its face and should be overturned. Then, the Congress of the United States can inact a real abortion law, or leave it to the states to decide. It should reflect the will of the people, not a few judges. Of course, the pro CHOICE people run backward at the thought of people actually having a CHOICE as to whether or not carte blanche abortion should be legal. Pro choice...right. Where is the baby's choice in all this?
The fact of the matter is, if put to state discretion, there are several states that would enact carte blanche abortion law. But there are some who would not. As with any law, it should be the will of the majority...is that not what democracy is all about? CHOICE?
Decisions vs ideas.
nm
and he gets to make those decisions? nm
x
Roe versus Wade majority and problems with the law
Actually, I've read where if put to a vote polls have shown that Roe versus Wade would be overturned. Whether abortion is right or wrong aside many people, including many liberal lawyers say that RVW is a badly written law in the first place.
Roe vs Wade gave us the right to choose years ago. nm
.
Who makes your medical decisions now?
Socialism does not always evolve into dictatorship. France is not a dictatorship, nor is Canada, and the 3 Scandanavian countries have had socialized medicine, socialized transportations, socialized education for about a century. Unlike this country, they have never started a single war, have no race riots, no poverty to speak of, very low rate of unwed pregnancies and STDs, etc.
"Socialist" Germany before WWII? What on earth are you talking about?
All socialism is all the people sharing the burden of public goods - schools, streets, sewer systems, military defense, etc. We are the only developed country in the world that does not share the cost of health care and education for its entire citizenry.
There are so many half-baked statements in your post, it would take a book to answer them all.
Again, we are the only country that does not pay for the education of its citizens - here we have to go n debt for 10 or 20 years to pay back student loans for a college and/or graduate education. Why do you think we have so many foreign doctors here? Because they come here to make PROFIT - we have the only health care system that is run by corporations and is based on profit, not on care for the patients.
Whatever the U.S. does or doesn't do where Israel and the middle east is involved is irrelevant. The land of Israel is THE promised land. It belongs to the Jews. They have had to fight for it against odds stacked against them and have won.
marks the location of current message within thread![](http://te.latimes.com/blank.gif"){kind=spacer}
