From Live Action News:
Obama nominee Garland sided against Priests for Life in contraception mandate case
As Americans attempt to discern the views of Judge Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, the Washington Post’s Julie Zauzmer has identified a past case in which he sided against Priests for Life.
In May, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals voted 6-3 to deny the group an en banc hearing by the whole court in its case against the Obama Administration’s contraception mandate, which had the result of preserving an earlier ruling in favor of the mandate.
Jay Wexler of Boston University attempted to downplay Garland’s vote with the majority as a procedural move “which doesn’t say much of anything about his views on the case,” though he did acknowledge it meant Garland “didn’t think the panel opinion denying the Priests’ religious freedom claim was clearly wrong.”
In addition, Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards was seen entering the White House West Wing minutes after Obama’s announcement of the nomination concluded, which has been interpreted as a sign that Obama wished to reassure Richards of Garland’s commitment to upholding a right to abortion.
As Live Action News covered Wednesday, Garland has not explicitly discussed or or directly ruled on abortion, but was a former clerk for Justice William Brennan, who voted in favor of Roe v. Wade, and has praised Justice Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe’s majority opinion.
In other news, big-business abortion-for-profit seems pleased with the appointment…
Planned Parenthood CEO Applauds Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee
After President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday, Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards applauded the president’s choice and urged the Senate to approve him.
“Judge Garland is an intelligent, highly accomplished judge who has secured bipartisan support in his previous appointments,” Richards said in a statement. “Now that the President has upheld his constitutional duty, it is time for the Senate to uphold theirs. The American people deserve a full court and a justice appointed by the President they elected for four years — not three. It is time for the Senate to do their job and give Judge Garland a fair hearing and up or down vote.”
[…]
Leaving aside considerations of his bad ruling in DC about the 2nd Amendment, if big-business abortion-for-profit Richards wants him approved, …
Loading ...
Before I saw this news, I had read USA Today’s Richard Wolf writing on 16 March, “During 19 years at the D.C. Circuit, Garland has managed to keep a low profile. The court’s largely administrative docket has left him without known positions on issues such as abortion or the death penalty.” As you say, “if big-business abortion-for-profit Richards wants him approved, …”: reason enough to reject him!
And now I see that he seems to think Constitutional eligibility for office is unimportant, just something to joke about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9G-eqNd3kA
It’s funny, I’ve been pondering lately how the stance of one major presidential candidate who said that “government” should stay out of this sort of thing comports with photos of Cecile Richards at the WH and establishment government’s big investment in bigger and worse abortion.
I just would like to hear the arguments from the candidates that justify how a gazillion lives lost matches up with the “right to privacy”.
All told, this “right to privacy” is kind of a bust. It’s not noble or ideological. All it appears to stand for in practice is justification for eliminating children into the infanticide and genocidal stratospheres, for no good reason, and for greed. There’s no “free love” aspect to it any longer. If there ever was.
And furthermore, what good is a “right to privacy” if it means certain horrible other things that are burgeoning on and on and on and have essentially eliminated people’s privacy, private citizens, out of hate and bigotry and angry militant ideologies.
If someone developed a new method of abortion, such that the child would be delivered alive and then terminated with a bullet to the temple, would Judge Garland oppose abortion in some circumstances, notice that once the child is born, the pregnancy has already been terminated and so the death of the child is murder, or merely condemn gun violence?
Chris Garton-Zavesky,
The ‘termination of pregnancy’ by delivering the baby as soon as it was pretty certain to have developed-enough lungs to breathe, would be irresponsible, but preferable to making sure the baby died. It seems to be common practice in the UK to make sure to kill ‘viable’ babies with urea before delivering them:
https://www.spuc.org.uk/abortion/methods/prostaglandin
Much has long been made of the ‘horrors’ of asking a woman to continue an ‘unwanted pregnancy’ till the baby could be safely delivered, but now someone has come up with a reason to encourage women to do so:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/organs-at-any-price-gestating-for-donating/17734#sthash.r9UoA0FY.dpuf