WP: Women Closest to Bush Are Pro-Choice

Women Closest to Bush Are Pro-Choice
By Ann Gerhart
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 19, 2005; 5:45 PM


During the 2000 presidential campaign, Barbara Bush said the Republican Party should drop an anti-abortion plank from its national platform.

"Listen to your mama," declared a radio ad aired at the time by an abortion-rights group. "That's a family value we can all agree on."Now, as President Bush readies to announce his choice for a Supreme Court justice, that ad remains one of the only direct references to a rarely-mentioned fact: The women closest to the president support abortion rights. His mother, his wife and one of his most trusted advisors, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, all have stated that they believe Roe v. Wade should not be overturned.

Bush hears daily from social conservatives who urge him to appoint a justice who firmly opposes abortion. If the women in his inner circle speak their minds on this subject in private, he may hear something different.

How a president makes decisions and who he consults is difficult to know, perhaps even more so in this administration and on such a divisive issue. As Bush considers judicial candidates, the competition for his attention has been cast as a well-funded battle between competing interest groups. What this overlooks is the possibility that Bush, who famously follows his heart and gut and acts decisively, may have some internal conflicts.

Bush frequently touts the influence of the high-level women in his administration. And he often talks about how he respects his wife's opinions, crediting her for moderating his behavior and his rhetoric....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071901164.html

Remember, they also think the Pill and Morning After is abortion too. So, I wonder if LAURA killed any little fertilized egg/fetuses/babies/INFANTS? This are the terms these "egicated" people use.

Sorry, to be so sarcastic, but most of these people are TOTALLY CLUELESS.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I wonder how many other embryos were thrown away to have them?

But I have to say he doesn't listen to any of those women they are just window dressing unless they are hanging drapes over his misdeeds.

This is pure Repug propaganda. BattleAxe Bush is pro-choice except if it means not supporting anything the Repugs do. She was a loud, outspoken supporter of Clarence Thomas. Does that sound like someone who is REALLY pro-choice????

or risk losing the Christian Right's support of the GOP. The Republicans
have been promising to overturn Roe v Wade for decades to get the
anti-choice vote. It's my understanding that in the 04 Election the word
was given to the Republicans that it was past time to come across on
these endless promises, or the Religious Right would retaliate.

Well, we know what our next fight is.

Naral's old fact sheet on John Roberts included the statements below:


NARAL: REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM & CHOICE JUNE 2001
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Previously nominated by President George Bush to the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 1992.
Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, 1989-93.

"The Court was so accustomed to the Solicitor General and the Deputy Solicitor General arguing for the overturn of Roe that during John Roberts¡¦ oral argument before the Supreme Court in Bray, a Justice asked, ¡§Mr. Roberts, in this case are you asking that Roe v. Wade be overruled?¡¨ He responded, ¡§No, your honor, the issue doesn¡¦t even come up.¡¨ To this the justice said, ¡§Well that hasn¡¦t prevented the Solicitor General from taking that position in prior cases.¡¨Transcript of Oral Argument of John Roberts, Jr., dated Oct. 16, 1991, Bray v. Alexandria Women¡¦s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) (No. 90-985).

As Deputy Solicitor General, Roberts argued in a brief before the U.S. Supreme Court (in a case that did not implicate Roe v. Wade) that ¡§e continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled¡K. he Court¡¦s conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion¡K finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.¡¨Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) (Nos. 89-1391, 89-1392).
In Rust v. Sullivan -500 U.S. 173 (19917), the Supreme Court considered whether Department of Health and Human Services regulations limiting the ability of Title X recipients to engage in abortion-related activities violated various constitutional provisions. Roberts, appearing on behalf of HHS as Deputy Solicitor General, argued that this domestic gag rule did not violate constitutional protections.ƒnRoberts, again as Deputy Solicitor General, argued as amicus curiae for the United States supporting Operation Rescue and six other individuals who routinely blocked access to reproductive health care clinics, arguing that the
protesters¡¦ behavior did not amount to discrimination against women even though only women could exercise the right to seek an abortion. Intervening as amicus is a wholly discretionary decision on the part of the Solicitor General. Here the government chose to involve itself in a case in support of those who sought to deprive women of the right to choose. Roberts argued that the protesters¡¦ blockade and protests merely amounted to an expression of their opposition to abortion and that a civil rights remedy was therefore inappropriate.

They consider them second class citizens. I know a guy, (republican) who says his wife will vote the way he tells her to vote. This is common among republicans. That's why they don't cater to the female vote. They assume once they get the male vote, they will get "the wife" vote.

I've been on half a dozen boards since the announcment, and on every one of them is a large cadre of posters saying "Oh, well, there goes Roe, but he's not so bad ..." (or similar sentiments.

Tell ya what, "fellow" Dems, if we DON"T fight this nominee, y'all just give me a call when you're ready to EARN my vote.

His position on abortion is troubling, Hell it's terrifying, but this guy isn't a one trick pony. He's solidly on the bad side of just about every issue out there, I mean the guy's a member of the Federalist society. We're not talking about a moderate in ANY sense. Too many people out there saying we can swallow this guy, or worse yet we'd be better off politically to let him ride in.

It shakes my confidence to hear that talk.

Vast majority of women are pro-choice.

Majority of all men are pro-choice.

Vast majority of rich white men are pro-life.

You do the math.

around him have to say.....

But, being Republicans, they are inherently amoral, and therefore have no problem supporting the politicians who will ensure that their rich husbands can get their tax cuts.

The upper-crust Repub women will simply jet-set to some decent hospital in Europe to get their abortions.

we poor folks can't go. With this economy, don't think things will be looking up any too soon.

And also right -- that doesn't seem to have prevented them from supporting today's Republicans.

But shit..look at these weird wives clubs...would you believe Arnold's wife was related to the Kennedy's?

The not knowing the other half always gets me going. The old saying behind every ______________-man is a strong women some people just don't get

"But look, I'm a realist as well"?

RIGHT, W.

Oh, goody, the women are pro-choice... Fat lot of good it does us when these psychochristian freaks in power are hell bent on destroying Roe and other rulings and these women have zero power.

:puke: