E-mail to a friend re: Miers

[LuckyTheDog]

This is a note I sent to a right-leaning friend re: Harriett Miers. I thought I'd share it with you. He had asked me why I thought Miers wants to overturn Roe v. Wade
---------------------------------------

News came out yesterday that Miers has been on the "extreme end" of pro-life (whatever that means) ever since a fairly recent "born again" experience. The phrase "zeal of the freshly converted" comes to mind.

I also don't think Bush would nominate anyone who did not give him assurances about voting to reverse Roe. And the fact that Miers was immediately endorsed by Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice implies that such assurances were passed on to them.

What I am concerned about here, is not overturning Roe v. Wade per se. As well-crafted as that decision is (read it, it really is pretty solid), it's probably toast within five years. But the worst that could happen there is that the issue would be for the states to decide... or is it?

I am mainly concerned that an over-reaching court will go beyond merely overturning Roe -- that it will assert that citizens have no privacy rights and that all "products of conception" have the same Constitutionally protected rights as children. That would make it impossible for any state to make up its own mind about abortion laws.

Now, I don't like abortion. I'd never advise anyone to have one and would take steps to help a woman who otherwise might feel that it was her "only option." So, then, why do I care about protecting abortion rights?

It's privacy I am concerned with. Much is made about the fact that the word "privacy" does not exist in the Constitution. But then, the flip side of that is also true: The Constitution in NO WAY gives the government the right to poke around in our bedrooms or doctors' offices. But enforcing an absolute ban on abortion would require a level of government snooping and interference that we simply cannot accept.

Would pregnancies have to be reported to the state? Would miscarriages have to be investigated by the police? Would medical records be open for inspection? And how exactly would the state be able to protect the new rights granted to fetuses? I could see prosecutors going after women who smoke or drink during pregnancy, for example.

Without granting such powers to the government, abortion bans would be unenforceable and probably have no significant impact on the real-world abortion rate. But WITH such powers, government becomes more intrusive and powerful than most of us would be comfortable with.

[crispini]

1. Her conversion experience took place when she was 32, IIRC.

Not exactly "recent."

[LuckyTheDog]

2. Hmmm...

I had read that she "became a Republican" after converting. I also read that she had given money to Gore in 2000. I guess I put those together and assumed she had converted since 2000. But I might not have all the facts here.

[Arkansas Granny]

3. Do you think that these facts might have something to do with

Bush emphasizing at this press conference that she won't change in the next 20 years? Is he trying to convince his base that what she did in the past doesn't matter? Could someone look at her past record and say "flip-flop"? This wouldn't look good for him or her.

[LuckyTheDog]

4. Yep

They don't want her painted as a "flipper," that is for sure. Bush's statements seem to be a "wink and a nod" to the religious right.

[crispini]

5. Linky

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051005-122400-8922r.htm

[Vox_Reason]

6. I think she gave Gore $1000 in 1988.

Not 100% sure, but I think that's what I remember reading.

[LuckyTheDog]

7. Ahhh!

OK, then my timeline would be off. But I think the rest of my e-mail holds up.