As reported earlier, the Washington Post published an article that presents Harriet Miers as an abortion proponent (or at least supporting the right of women to "choose" abortion) based upon a 1993 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas. Without comment, here are a few interesting portions of Miers' talk:
What I see about all of this is the most disturbing is that there has evolved a government by non-action or a shifting to the judicial system of the responsibility for making all of the hard decisions . Sometimes I believe that elected officials would rather abandon to the Courts the hard questions so they can respond to the constituents: I did not want to do that the Court is making me. Many of the decisions that really need to be made are hard and unpopular. So its just politically advantageous to not make them[snip examples given]
My basic message here is that when you hear the Courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong... Stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue and whether abdication to courts to make the hard decisions is not a too prevalent tactic in todays world. Politicians who are too concerned about maintaining their jobs.HT: Charmaine Yoest, Full text of the speech: here.[snip]
Where else do we hear a lot today about the Courts. The law and religion. A preacher in Dallas is challenged by suits charging that he is ripping off the helpless and defrauding them with prayer cloths, etc. Abortion clinic protestors have become synonymous with terrorists and the courts have been the refuge for the besieged. The Branch Davidian compound became a sight for speculation about legal responsibilities and legal rights. The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual womens right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion. Questions about what can be taught or done in public places or public schools are presented frequently to the courts.
The law and religion make for interesting mixture but the mixture tends to evoke the strongest of emotions. The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination. And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes the most sense. Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago. Remember that fact appears to offer the most effective solutions to these problems once the easier cases are disposed of. For example, if a preacher is committing fraud and it can be shown, even if he is a preacher, he should be stopped. But if we just think people are ignorant or stupid for giving their money for a blessing, that is a different matter. No one should not be able to oppressively require a student to participate in religious activities against their will, but if a student on his or her own chooses to express him or herself in religious terms, that should not be prohibited. Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. However, when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act. I do not mean to make very complex, emotional issues too simplistic. But some of these issues do not need to be as complicated as they have become if people deal with each other with respect and reverence.
[snip]
Update: It is worth adding that pro-life Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, a member of the Judiciary Committee, continued his patient approach to revelations regarding Miers positions. "We need to know what she meant by those statements. We will have to inquire," he said.
