<\body> Stories in America: Real Republicans Oppose Alito

Friday, January 13, 2006

Real Republicans Oppose Alito

I wonder how many times Republicans like Christopher Barron, senior manager of Plannd Parenthood Repulibcans for Choice, will be quoted in the liberal media.

The Republican Party was founded on the ideals of individual freedom. The party had a once-proud history of defending individual rights, from helping in the fight to end slavery and to secure equal protection and voting rights for African Americans, to supporting women's suffrage.

President Bush has betrayed this distinguished tradition by nominating Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court. Alito has a history of hostility toward personal freedoms. Nowhere is this hostility more evident than in his position on the right to choose. He believes the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion and has written that he wants to "mitigate the effects" of Roe.

When faced with the question of who should make decisions about critical matters of women's health -- a woman and her doctor or the government -- Alito has routinely come down on the side of the government. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Alito's dissenting opinion would have upheld a law passed by the Pennsylvania legislature requiring women to inform their husbands before having an abortion. Judge Alito's opinion significantly downplayed the plight of abused women who would have been affected by the statute.

Real Republicans believe in personal freedom. Real Republicans believe in the right to privacy. Real Republicans believe that people should make their own health care decisions without government interference. Real Republicans oppose Samuel Alito.


At 1/13/2006 2:04 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, personal freedom.

And 10,000,000 females exterminated.

(Whoo hoo)


At 1/13/2006 9:02 PM, Anonymous mary said...

And what does the fact that girls are unwanted in India have to do with my ability to make my own choices about my body and reproductive rights?

India abortion report contested

At 1/14/2006 12:10 AM, Anonymous sue said...

With some 10,000 children reportedly at risk in New York City alone, what a shame the pious anti-abortion people don’t turn their anger on those who kill or try to kill born children. Little girls and boys get burned, drowned, starved, scalded, and beaten to death too often in this country, but I don’t hear the religious right grieving over their deaths or saying mass for them. Why aren’t they arguing over whether those children got their souls at conception or at birth? .

Perhaps if we labeled those deaths “retroactive abortion,” the men and sometimes even women who inflict torture and terror on born seven-year-olds would rouse the indignation of those so-called Christians to the point they might even demand the death penalty for people who wilfully murder a child, especially in the brutal manners they seem to enjoy.

Or does their myopic god care only about embryos?

At 1/14/2006 12:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Aljazeera.net -- You gotta be kidding.

"And what does the fact that girls are unwanted in India have to do with my ability to make my own choices about my body and reproductive rights?"

Nothing, Mary. You can make whatever choices you want for whatever reasons you wish...just like they do in merry 'ol India.

Sorry, I know the extermination of millions of females shouldn't bother me...I mean, they are "unwanted" and all...

Maybe I haven't "grown" enough yet.

At 1/14/2006 12:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, you're probably right Sue.

If those ten million baby girls were born in India and then executed when they got a couple years old, the religious right would be like totally cool with that.


Post a Comment

<< Home