It's the end of the world! (Women to suffer the most.)
Judging from the hysterical reaction of the left, President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to be an associate Supreme Court Justice is the end of the world...at least for women.
Apparently the one and only concern of women in this day and age is access to abortion. It is ironic that a group that is trying to milk the civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan (especially the children) for political gain would now claim that a woman's supreme right (perhaps even duty) is to have an abortion-an act that has the most dire consequences for the child(ren) involved.
I (half) jokingly say that the left likes to treat the Constitution like a menu; picking and choosing which items to support and which ones to ignore. The Supreme Court fight seems to have reduce the scope even more drastically. According to the left, all issues now directly affect a woman's "right" to terminate a pregnancy.
This is precisely why the left keeps losing national elections and losing support in many areas of the United States. Even people who are pro-choice on abortion realize that there is more to and about woman than access to cheap and easy abortions. Women have made great strides in society over the past few decades. They are just as concerned about the economy, national security and the war on terrorism as are men. To objectify women in such a manner, and to patronize their status in society (as if they had nothing else on their minds than to worry about whether they could have an abortion on demand) reduces them to the flesh and blood equivalent of an incubator.
This kind of behavior from the left has driven millions of women to the right and the Republican party. While the left treats them as a special interest group obsessed with abortion, the right treats them as they are: different individuals with different priorities ranging from education, to the economy and national defense. As long as the left continues to treat women as a single-vote group they will continue to lose support.
Women are interested in a wide variety of issues. They want to know where a party stands on all of those issues so they can make an informed choice about which candidates to support. Similarly, they want to know more about Judge Roberts than what his personal opinion about abortion might be.
Update: John Fund echoes the sentiment in his Political Diary:
To Roberts' Opponents, the Constitution Is About Abortion and Only Abortion
When President Bush interviewed John Roberts last Friday, he told him that any Supreme Court nominee he named would undergo an examination akin to that of a proctologist. That is certainly proving to be the case.
Yesterday, David Leitch and Shannen Coffen, two former colleagues of Judge Roberts, appeared on a conference call with reporters to discuss their friend's background and character. Most of the questions were civil, but the two were also pelted with inquiries about what church Judge Roberts, a Roman Catholic, had attended and who else was in the congregation.
We can safely guess that abortion will be one area of inquiry reporters will spare no effort in examining Judge Roberts on. Within hours of his being named to the high court, the Boston Globe reported that his wife, lawyer Jane Sullivan Roberts, had been involved in a group called Feminists for Life that had filed legal briefs challenging the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. This morning, the Los Angeles Times weighed in with a front-page story on Ms. Roberts' involvement with the pro-life organization. Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the liberal Center for American Progress, explained to the Times why Judge Roberts' wife will inevitably be a subject of interest to administration opponents: "In the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."
Serrin Foster, the president of Feminists for Life, noted that Judge Roberts had never been involved with her organization and that his wife last held a position in the group in 1999. Since then she has written an article for its newsletter on adoption, a subject of interest since she and her husband have adopted two young children. Don't be surprised, though, if some enterprising reporter tries to unearth the "story behind" their adoption before this confirmation battle is over.
-John Fund
Apparently the one and only concern of women in this day and age is access to abortion. It is ironic that a group that is trying to milk the civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan (especially the children) for political gain would now claim that a woman's supreme right (perhaps even duty) is to have an abortion-an act that has the most dire consequences for the child(ren) involved.
I (half) jokingly say that the left likes to treat the Constitution like a menu; picking and choosing which items to support and which ones to ignore. The Supreme Court fight seems to have reduce the scope even more drastically. According to the left, all issues now directly affect a woman's "right" to terminate a pregnancy.
This is precisely why the left keeps losing national elections and losing support in many areas of the United States. Even people who are pro-choice on abortion realize that there is more to and about woman than access to cheap and easy abortions. Women have made great strides in society over the past few decades. They are just as concerned about the economy, national security and the war on terrorism as are men. To objectify women in such a manner, and to patronize their status in society (as if they had nothing else on their minds than to worry about whether they could have an abortion on demand) reduces them to the flesh and blood equivalent of an incubator.
This kind of behavior from the left has driven millions of women to the right and the Republican party. While the left treats them as a special interest group obsessed with abortion, the right treats them as they are: different individuals with different priorities ranging from education, to the economy and national defense. As long as the left continues to treat women as a single-vote group they will continue to lose support.
Women are interested in a wide variety of issues. They want to know where a party stands on all of those issues so they can make an informed choice about which candidates to support. Similarly, they want to know more about Judge Roberts than what his personal opinion about abortion might be.
Update: John Fund echoes the sentiment in his Political Diary:
To Roberts' Opponents, the Constitution Is About Abortion and Only Abortion
When President Bush interviewed John Roberts last Friday, he told him that any Supreme Court nominee he named would undergo an examination akin to that of a proctologist. That is certainly proving to be the case.
Yesterday, David Leitch and Shannen Coffen, two former colleagues of Judge Roberts, appeared on a conference call with reporters to discuss their friend's background and character. Most of the questions were civil, but the two were also pelted with inquiries about what church Judge Roberts, a Roman Catholic, had attended and who else was in the congregation.
We can safely guess that abortion will be one area of inquiry reporters will spare no effort in examining Judge Roberts on. Within hours of his being named to the high court, the Boston Globe reported that his wife, lawyer Jane Sullivan Roberts, had been involved in a group called Feminists for Life that had filed legal briefs challenging the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. This morning, the Los Angeles Times weighed in with a front-page story on Ms. Roberts' involvement with the pro-life organization. Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman with the liberal Center for American Progress, explained to the Times why Judge Roberts' wife will inevitably be a subject of interest to administration opponents: "In the absence of information about this guy, people are looking at her and trying to read the tea leaves."
Serrin Foster, the president of Feminists for Life, noted that Judge Roberts had never been involved with her organization and that his wife last held a position in the group in 1999. Since then she has written an article for its newsletter on adoption, a subject of interest since she and her husband have adopted two young children. Don't be surprised, though, if some enterprising reporter tries to unearth the "story behind" their adoption before this confirmation battle is over.
-John Fund