Miers' 1993 Speech Draws Fire from Pro-Life Groups

"The law and religion make for [an] 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."

... 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.

[Miers'] words are a close paraphrase of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. Her use of terms like criminalize abortion to characterize the pro-life position and guarantee freedom to describe the pro-choice position should have sounded alarms in the White House during the vetting process.

When we defend the right to life, we hearken back to the Declaration of Independence, not to some strictly sectarian view. Science has long ago answered the question of when human life begins. The constitutional and legal question is whether we are going to defend innocent human life from lethal assault.

This speech raises very troubling questions about Miss Miers' views of constitutional matters.

Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation's largest public and pro-life policy women's organization, also called for Miers' nomination to be withdrawn.

"CWA was founded to provide an alternative to radical feminists – who claim to speak for all women – and who seek to impose policies that do not respect unborn babies, family or God. Too often these radical feminists found success, not through democratic means, but through activist courts," said Wendy Wright, executive vice president.

"Harriet Miers has shown respect for Christian values by attending an Evangelical church. But her professional and civic life leaves us questioning whether she chooses to reflect and advance the views of the group she's with at the moment. Though she attends an Evangelical church known for its pro-life position, during the same time period she advanced radical feminists and organizations that promote agendas that undermine respect for life and family," said Wendy Wright. "This drives us to rely upon her actions, her deeds, her words as opposed to the endorsements of those who have worked with and known her.

Matt Staver, Liberty Counsel president, told the Washington Post, "This concept of self-determination could clearly be read in support for things like abortion or same-sex marriage, and it's a philosophy that cuts a judge loose from the Constitution."

Kyleen Wright, president of the Texans for Life Coalition, called Miers's principle of self-determination "troubling" and was concerned about Miers's choice of words in characterizing the abortion debate. "In the pro-life movement, we don't recognize a right to decide who lives or dies," Wright told the Post.

Additional reactions from pro-life bloggers: click here.

Updates:

Patterico comments fairly (HT: Professor Bainbridge),

I think it is less than crystal clear from the speech (which is badly worded and confusing) that the “self-determination” comment relates to abortion. As the quote I provide above shows, it comes in the context of discussing cases about “the law and religion” — but interestingly, the previous paragraph seems to indicate that Miers sees abortion cases as cases about law and religion. So we can’t say for sure that Miers believes that “self-determination” is the way to go on abortion cases, as the Post suggested.

Does that assuage the concerns this speech raises about Miers and abortion? No, it doesn’t. The reason is a quote I bolded above: “The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women’s right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion.” That is the way an abortion-rights supporter frames the issue, folks. There it is, in context. There is no denying that this is an incredibly demoralizing revelation for anyone who believes that Roe and Casey must be overruled.

This sounds very much like the reasoning that led Anthony Kennedy to reaffirm the Roe v. Wade precedent in his decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood the previous year, 1992

Hugh Hewitt responds here.