President Bush-John Kerry Contest Could Decide Abortion for 30 Years

by Steven Ertelt August 10, 2004

[LifeNews.com Note: Steven Ertelt is the Editor and CEO of LifeNews.com. The following editorial is a follow-up to the Pro-Life Advocates: Vote for President Bush opinion piece that summarizes President Bush's pro-life record.]

Every election year, there's always talk about the importance of the upcoming election in terms of its impact on abortion policy. There's no doubt, each election is considerably important.

However, this time around, the stakes are higher than ever before. Here's why: The next president will have the power to determine whether abortion will remain legal for the next 30 years.

In 1973, the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion by a 7-2 vote. The current court backs abortion by a 6-3 margin.

The next president could appoint as many as four new Supreme Court justices and elevate one of the high court's members to the Chief Justice position.

This will be an exchange of power and a turnover of membership on the court like never seen before.

For those of us concerned about the nightmarish travesty of abortion, this is a shift that could have enormous potential or set the pro-life community up for decades of more heartache.

Associate Judges Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who back abortion, and pro-life Chief Justice William Rehnquist are all considered likely retirees over the next few years.

President Bush has a strong record thus far of appointing pro-life judges to key federal court positions. Should he be re-elected and replace each of those four judges with pro-life advocates in the mold of Thomas or Antonin Scalia, the current 6-3 pro-abortion margin shifts to a 6-3 position in favor of overturning Roe.

Even if one of those judges turns out to be another O'Connor or Souter, defying the pro-life expectations placed on them during their nominations, a 5-4 margin against Roe still gives the pro-life community its first legitimate opportunity to protect the lives of unborn children since the early 1990s.

However, if John Kerry is elected president, and he replaces those four judges with abortion supporters, that will take the court back to the 7-2 position in favor of abortion that it had in 1973.

In other words, the pro-life movement will be right back where it started in its effort to stop abortion. We will have made no progress in more than three decades in terms of changing the makeup of the Supreme Court, if John Kerry is elected.

Furthermore, those four new judges will be lifetime appointees. They will be younger than the current members of the court and could have as many as 20 to 30 years or more of their career ahead of them.

Consider that the last four judges to leave the Supreme Court served there for decades.

Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe, and Thurgood Marshall served on the high court for 24 years. Byron White, who dissented with Rehnquist in Roe, served 31 years, and William Brennan retired after 34 years on the bench.

Whether the next four judges are pro-abortion or pro-life, several presidential terms would come and go before their likely retirement. The pro-life community would either have a fair chance to turn back Roe or no hope at all.

Pro-life voters need to keep in mind this election year that if John Kerry is elected, Roe will almost assuredly be preserved and abortion will probably remain legal for decades. That means every vote for Kerry and every vote not cast for President Bush (i.e., for a third-party candidate or by citizens who abstain from voting) is a vote to keep abortion legal for as many as thirty years.

If we truly want to see Roe thrown in the trash heap of history right next to the Dred Scott decision, we can't let that happen.

It is up to you to elect a pro-life president this November. It is up to you to re-elect President Bush. Women and unborn children are counting on you.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 19, 2004

Answers

Don't let the "spin-doctor" fool you.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 19, 2004.

First, I cannot see how anyone who really cares about the ethical condition of the country could vote for Kerry, who represents, in fact, the Hollywood / New York Times axis of anti-Catholic (and anti- Christian) bigotry in this country, but it would be dishonest to claim that this election is as crucial as the poster "David" claims. First, who can we be sure will leave the court? Here are the ages of the justices in question (done by simple subtraction, might be off by six months): Stevens: 84 Renquist: 80 O'Connor: 74 Ginsberg: 71 Since justices serve until they are comatose, there actual probability is that only Stevens will die in the next 4 years. And he might live to be 90 (as any number of justices have). To dream that O'Connor and Ginsberg will die or retire is pie-in-the-sky. To be reasonable, one can expect that the next president will appoint one justice (perhaps). It might be Stevens or Renquist. Now, let's be honest. Althought the Democratic record is PRO- DEATH, the Republican record is hardly stellar. Go back and count how many of the Pro-Death justices are Republican appoointees! Does this mean that we shouldn't vote for Bush? No. But the Pro-Life Republicans are the Blacks of the party. Since they always vote republican, those in power don't care about them any more than the Democrats care about Blacks. I think it is time for Catholics to recognize that the people who control the levers of power in this "Republic" are (and always have been) Anti-Catholic bigots. Don't let any politician try to manipulate you into voting for yet another fake friend of Catholics, much less the Pseudo-Catholic Kerry (or the truly Protestant Bush?). Since only one justice is likely to resign, perhaps we should vote for some real Pro-Life Candidate (they are on every ballot) and send a message to the Republicans that they are at our mercy in electing presidents.

-- An orthodox Interloper (spamster@silly.com), August 19, 2004.

"..First, I cannot see how anyone who really cares about the ethical condition of the country could vote for Kerry, who represents, in fact, the Hollywood / New York Times axis of anti-Catholic (and anti- Christian) bigotry in this country..."

Amen Lope.

-- - (David@excite.com), August 20, 2004.

Amen to your WHOLE post, Lope. As I've been trying to tell you David, not everything is totally black or white.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 20, 2004.

I object to the statement that, with a 7-2 pro-abortion SC, we would have "made no progress since Roe vs. Wade." Prayer and activism since then have made tremendous progress on several sectors of society, government notwithstanding. Culturally, the war for the pre-born has seen many victories, even while all three branches of the State have lingered in the 70's.

Michael Moore even complains that more abortion clinics closed during the Clinton administration than any other since RvW.

Government is not the only front on which this battle roars! Never lose hope, no matter who wins the election.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 21, 2004.

"Government is not the only front on which this battle roars! Never lose hope, no matter who wins the election. "

Sounds good friend But lets look at the facts again about what will happen if kerry and edwards are voted in:In 2003 Edwards attacked President Bush for signing the bill banning partial-birth abortions.

In 2003 Edwards voted against ‘Laci and Conner’s Law,’ also known as the Unborn Victims of Violence Act which recognizes unborn children as murder victims if they are killed by criminals in violent federal crimes. HR 1997, 3/25/04, Roll Call 63

In 2003 Edwards voted to endorse Roe v. Wade as “an important constitutional right…which should not be overturned.” S 3, 3/12/03, Roll Call 48

In 1999 Edwards voted to include abortion as a ‘health benefit’ for federal employees. S. 1282, 7/1/99, Roll Call 197

In 2001 Edwards voted to restrict the speech of pro-life and other citizen advocacy groups by imposing severe limits. S. 27, 4/2/01, Roll Call 64

In 2003 Edwards voted to use government facilities for performing abortion. S. 1050, 5/22/03, Roll Call 192

In 1999 Edwards voted against an effort to document the sale of “fetal tissue.” S. 1692, 10/21/99, Roll Call 338

In addition, Edwards has consistently supported filibusters against President Bush's pro-life judicial nominees. For example, Edwards voted six times in favor of the filibuster that blocked the confirmation of Miguel Estrada and in favor of the filibusters of pro-life Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and former Alabama Attorney General, pro-life William Pryor, both nominated to federal courts of appeals.

From the John Kerry Website

“John Kerry believes that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God. He will defend this right as President. He recently announced he will support only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court.

From the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)

“NARAL Pro-Choice America knows, based on John Kerry’s record in the U.S. Senate, and the positions he has articulated as a candidate for President, that Roe v. Wade would be safe in his hands if he is elected President. He is an unwavering supporter of a woman’s right to choose as well as the privacy rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

“We also know that based on everything George Bush has ever said or done about choice that Americans’ rights are in severe peril, and if he is president for four more years, women will lose the right to choose. His record of nominating the most vehemently anti-choice judges and his recess appointments of the most extreme anti-privacy judicial activists prove that President Bush will fulfill his promise to “do everything in my power to restrict abortion.”

From Planned Parenthood

"With the selection of John Edwards as his running mate, Sen. Kerry has again shown his complete commitment to reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care," PPAF president Gloria Feldt said. "In stark contrast to the current administration, a Kerry- Edwards administration will stand up for the fundamental rights of women both in the United States and around the world and will ensure that women's health is a centerpiece of its agenda."

“Sen. Edwards has a 100% pro-choice, pro-family planning, pro-woman voting record in the U.S. Senate. He marked the 30th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade by stating, "The right to choose is not just about a woman's privacy. It is also about a woman's equality and her personal dignity - her inalienable right to stand as a proud and independent equal in our society. The right to choose is an essential ingredient in the full equality of women."

“As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Edwards has been an influential voice of opposition against President Bush's attacks on women's rights and extremist nominations to the federal bench. During his term Edwards cast pro-choice votes on numerous pieces of legislation relating to reproductive health…” From National Right to Life

"During his nearly six years in the U.S. Senate, John Edwards -- like John Kerry -- has consistently voted according to the dictates of hard-line pro-abortion groups, and contrary to policies favored by most Americans." Douglas Johnson, Legislative DirectoR.

God bless you

-- - (David@excite.com), August 27, 2004.

today the archbishop in St. Louis said that it was okay to vote against bush in spite of the abortion issue...and atleat His Holiness doesnt think John Kerry is the anti-christ

-- John Dell (chessiusmaximus@yahoo.com), September 05, 2004.

today the archbishop in St. Louis said that it was okay to vote against bush in spite of the abortion issue...and atleat His Holiness doesnt think John Kerry is the anti-christ

***Interesting considering he said the opposite at first. Hmmm, guess being pc is correct even in the Catholic Church whether right or wrong. Nothing new either. ;o)

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), September 05, 2004.

"..today the archbishop in St. Louis said that it was okay to vote against bush in spite of the abortion issue...and atleat His Holiness doesnt think John Kerry is the anti-christ "

No he didn't. He didn't mention President Bush or John Kerrys name. But which do we go by his statments last month or this month?

But we know John Kerry stance on gay marriage, euthanasia, abortion etc....So as Catholics we know we can't vote for a excomunicated Catholic that is for the slaughter of innocent children.

He is not the anti-Christ. He is a man that is going to hell unless he repents though.

-- - (David@excite.com), September 05, 2004.