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.
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 v Wade put such decisions where they belonged -
.
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?
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.
For this you have to wait at least 3 years and 8 months , maybe 7 years and 8 mohths...nm
nm
Please choose another name! SM
I have been using MT for a long time. I don't need this headache! Man!
How does he choose???
The same way the previous presidents chose which I am not privy to but I know he is indeed the only president who has ever not attended at least one funeral of an American soldier during war time.(He also is the only president who did not pitch the first ball on opening day of baseball season...not important but an interesting sidebar for a former baseball team owner - most think he did not want to deal with the dissent). Not appropriate????? are you kidding??? what is the difference between a 19-year-old losing his life to a lunatic or a 19-year-old losing his life in the service of his country. Both should be given the respect of presidential presence.
Who do we choose
I think this is the first time in my life I will not vote. Neither candidate is capable in my opinion of running this country. One doesn't care about the country and the other one just got lucky being the last man standing in his party. Our country is "dumbdowning" in their presidential candidates. Just my opinion.
What right to choose act? We already have the
.
Now let's see. If I had to choose between
having a racist call me naive, sign me up for a barrel full of pot shots. Naive I am.
womans right to choose
what a woman chooses to do with her body, is her business..you are such a fanatic. Worry about you and yours and leave others to deal with their own. Worry about the kids already here that have no homes, worry about all the kids we are killing in Bush's immoral war. Worry about the kids we are sending as soldiers to get maimed and die for nothing.
I don't know why you would choose this fight anyway...sm
Bennetts words are right there for all to see/hear. This came out of his mouth, you can't make this stuff up.
If you can't see any wrong, hate, inappropriateness in what he said then that's on you.
Don't we pick and choose
Don't we pick which Bible adages we follow? The Bible also says turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor as thyself, do unto others....yet many Christians in various venues (including these boards) chide others for being advocates of peace, tolerance and love for all citizens of the world.
The Bible has contradictions, it was written by men, after all and seems incredibly subject to interpretation.
Only because you choose to make it so.
You are pro choice obviously, there is a choice to be made here too. There is nothing noble about using a 17-year-old for political fodder. What if the situation were reversed? What if Barack Obama had a pregnant teenage girl? Can you honestly say with a straight face you would have posted this same thing? Or are you suggesting that the left have no family values?
Tell me, who would you choose to interview him? nm
NObody's that stupid, gourdpainter. Not even you!
Right to choose........no matter what? sm
Then by the same token, it is a woman's right to choose (or choice) to have sex in the first place, apart from incest and/or rape. In those 2 instances, the woman truly has no choice. However, I still do not believe that murdering a child is the answer. And I'm paying for children born out of wedlock anyway through my taxes.
"Just because someone adopts a child does not mean they are good parents." True, but there are also children in this world whose natural parents are not good parents.
Finally....I think you misunderstood my stance on doctors refusing to do abortions. In order to treat STDs, a doctor does not have to murder someone. In order to treat AIDS, a doctor does not have to murder someone. These are diseases which REQUIRE treatment in order for the patient to live. Conversely, in order to treat an unwanted pregnancy through abortion, a doctor MUST PERFORM MURDER, regardless of the gestational age of the baby. If a doctor does not believe that murder is right, then I believe he is within his God-given right to refuse to perform an abortion. I believe nurses and scrub techs and other support staff are also within their right to refuse to participate in such a procedure based on their religious beliefs/moral convictions.
which charities to support gives us too much control. Much better for government to grab our money and distribute it ''fairly'' to causes and individuals we would never approve of on our own. It goes right along with plans to eliminate individual choice in health care, eliminate school vouchers, bailouts, millions to ACORN, proposed limitations on first and second amendment rights.
Do you remember Peter Falk as Columbo? ''Oh, and just one more thing....'' In an interview, Falk said that being investigated by Columbo was ''like being nibbled to death by ducks.'' Pretty good analogy to what's happening in our government.
Can't have trans fat because someone has decided we can't decide for ourselves what those are.
Businessowners can no longer decide to allow smoking in their bars where majority of patrons are smokers in many places because someone else has decided it's for the greater good if they don't.
I could go on. It isn't Democrat or Republican, it's WE THE PEOPLE allowing these things to happen, allowing ourselves to be duped by studies, doctors, and scientists who think they know what is best for everyone and that we aren't capable of making choices on our own. If we don't stop it in its tracks, it won't matter which party or who is in office. It will continue to spin out of control until we no longer have the choices of which you speak! But in order to make any difference, we have to be united and stop turning on each other.
Rs and Ds will choose which polls to hear...
You cannot overlook 13% undecided which gives neither candidate a bounce over the 50 mark, no matter how hard you try to make it fly. You can have your 3-day whoop, no problem. Convention bounce has a tendency to fade quickly in the face of unaddressed issues.
Look....if liberals can pick and choose...
statements of what someone said once and once they say now...so can conservatives. You can't have it both ways.
Obama didn't choose this man..
He had this man chosen for him and probably had to be kicked pulling and screaming to this VP pick. If you have ever watched Biden speak, he has nothing but rave reviews of McCain. Sure, he's now running against him but he didn't suddenly change his feelings about him. He hasn't towards Obama either; he's just going through the motions in hopes of getting to the White House VP slot where he can make another run in 2012.
I can't, because they choose to remain nameless
x
ya'll all said he should choose better acquaintances! nm
x
They choose to ignore that fact
Becauuse it would be much harder to scare people if they told the truth.
You choose who you CARE to hear
Still, you are lumping everyone together. I AM a Christian AND a Republican and while I personally am definitely pro-life, I understand you cannot legislate morality. I definitely believe in sex education for our children and have no problem with birth control.
But if that woman decided to kill HERSELF - when it actually IS her body - it's a crime.
You promote abortion. The fact that you don't want to admit it proves that somewhere in your dank, shriveled-up little soul, there's at least one ounce of decency that knows what you're professing is wrong.
You are pro-abortion. You're just in denial about it. LIke every other "proud Liberal" lunatic.
Excuse me but what do you mean by pick and choose?
Obama has NO right to 'pick and choose.' He cannot interfere in Iran's sovereignty and internal affairs only with the justification that he supports and defends democracy. I wished he could! But he cannot, this would have been a grave mistake, a bigger mistake than Iraq.
Meanwhile, Barry Obama can do no wrong, and the facts are spun in the media to his direction, making him look like the poster boy for "poor me" they're trying to "smear me" ....
No matter that it is all TRUE!!!!!
Well, boo hoo.
Barry worked for ACORN, was and is, friends with terrorists and racists and liberal democratic former CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, people who hate this country and all it stands for are his so called "friends" that he has thrown under the bus.
Watch, if he wins, they'll all pop out of the woodwork again.
That man lies and rewrites his life story, and you all believe him.
That old saying that goes: Show me a person's friends and those he surrounds himself with, and it will show you who he is.
Well, I certainly don't like and trust what and who Barry Obama.
Gee, how come there is NO ONE from Barry's former or current life, that are friends that can stand up for his character?
The street is always one-way for the democrats, the biggest spin doctors around.
I'll take SP over O any day.
Yep. And I will certainly abide by what the american people choose....
be it obama or McCain. But I know one thing...I won't have been a part of putting Obama or anymore Democrats in government. No way. No how. Happy voting!
Exactly, is it fair to infringe on the caregiver's right to choose? sm
So the woman choosing whether to have an abortion should have the right to choose what she does with her body but the medical person she goes to does not have a right to choose what they do with their body? I don't think one person's rights should infringe upon another's.
Really, I am smart and one has to choose wisely on what to use one's braincells.....
I think I stop for now with my postings. I do not want to get into flaming and I feel that it might come just to that, if you start questioning my intelligence if I do not read pagelong, useless links put on this board. I am not brainwashed. I live my life the way I choose
to live and you are free to live yours the way you want to live. If you don't believe in Christianity and salvation that is your choice. I don't call you brainwashed by those who don't believe in God, so please don't call me brainwashed by my convictions and my belief in a Savior and eternal life. Have a blessed day!Another thing - I for one am so tired of these women who CHOOSE
to have extramarital affairs with these politicians be looked up as 'victims'..there are women in this world who are truly exploited yet Monica, Gennifer, et AL have sat and cried 'foul' when they decided to make their bedroom exploits public and made money off of that behavior in the process. Victims indeed.Yes, freedom works for everyone, right to choose applies....sm
to individual doctors, nurses, and even pharmacists, as well as the woman; as you said, there are enough providers who will happily oblige and do the procedures for compensation and not have a problem with it. I used to be a surgical tech, I never had to assist in one, my docs were general surgeons, but I could never be in the room, myself, while an abortion was being performed, I would get sick. I am sorry, I believe in the freedom for others, but personally I could not be there, and would not want to be forced, could not! JMHO
I do not have evil thoughts. Satan exists whether you choose to
believe he does. Finally, the woman who prayed before she voted is not like me. She allowed herself to be deceived.
How about the one God gave us?
*You reap what you sow.* That's what they've done.
Anyhoo, thought you said you were leaving. Hmmmmmmmm.... they didn't have a real high regard for the truth, either.
To anyone else reading this: This person isn't even trying to hide the fact that he/she is baiting us. Let's not permit them to do to the Liberal board what they did to the Conservative board.
Just don't read this person's posts any more. They said they were leaving. They aren't doing that, and their only intention is to incite. Let's take the high road and not fall for their crap!
marks the location of current message within thread![](http://te.latimes.com/blank.gif"){kind=spacer}
