I Was Wrong: John Roberts Gets Picked

Ok, so my guess was wrong for the Supreme Court nominee. But President Bush did a better job in choosing John G. Roberts Jr. then I ever could.

So who is this person? While he lacks national name recognition, the Harvard-educated Roberts is a Washington insider who has worked at the White House, Justice Department and in private practice.

He was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1992 by the first President Bush and again by the president in 2001. The nominations died in the Senate both times. He was renominated in January 2003 and was confirmed by voice vote. His nomination to the appellate court attracted support from both sides of the ideological spectrum.

As both sides prepare for a battle, it is the issue of abortion that has swiftly emerged as a point of contention. Robert's is a practicing Roman Catholic, and while that is no guarantee he will be opposed to Roe vs. Wade, it provides a pretty good hint that he may be willing to overturn that decision. Especially when you take into account his case history:

As Deputy Solicitor General (arguing the positions formulated by the President, the Attorney General and other policy makers) on the issue of abortion, Roberts in a brief before the Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan (500 U.S. 173, 1991), Roberts wrote:

"We continue to believe that [Roe v. Wade] was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiae, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution." [1]

In the same capacity as deputy solicitor general, Roberts also argued in favor of a government regulation that banned abortion-related counseling by federally-funded family planning programs.

The president kept his campaign promise to nominate someone conservative. In response, liberal groups have lined up money and media to protest Roberts' views on abortion, religious freedom, environmental protections and the First Amendment.

Over the next few weeks you will hear countless talking heads use the term "women's rights" When you hear that term know what it really means... abortion. In order for a women to have rights she must be born. There are thousands of little women (and boys) who do not have someone to defend their right to live and breath. This is not a radical idea that we are all entitled to live. Yet many will portray it as just that. It will be presented as a step back on civil rights. Have we gone so far at to buy into the notion that killing your own flesh and blood is now your "civil right"?

For those of us who have prayed and fought for a change in the moral conscience of America, we have now been called to duty. We must demand fairness and hold our elected officials accountable.

May God help us if we fail to act and continue to drift into "death for sake of convenience" as a suitable replacement for personal responsibility. If America ceases to value human life, then what is anyone of us really worth?