Now No Doubt, Miers Would Oppose Roe v. Wade

In case anyone had any doubt, today’s news that Harriet Miers’ told Texans United for Life she was opposed to abortion and favored a constitutional amendment to that affect, makes clear which way she’d vote on Roe v. Wade:

Harriet E. Miers…disclosed on Tuesday a 1989 survey in which she supported banning abortion except to protect the life of the pregnant woman…

The 1989 survey, which Ms. Miers filled out for the anti-abortion group Texans United for Life when she was a candidate for the Dallas City Council, constituted the clearest indication yet of her personal views on abortion. It did not ask whether she believed that the Constitution protected a right to abortion.

“If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prohibit the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature?” the survey asked.

Ms. Miers answered yes. She told the group she would support a state ban on abortion, oppose public financing for abortions, participate in “pro-life” events and use her “influence as an elected official” to “promote the pro-life cause.”
—New York Times

cartoon: Elena Steier (used by permission)

Nathan Hecht has already promised evangelicals that she’s opposed to Roe. Now she’s basically telling you the same thing. What further proof does anyone need?

And if you’re fool enough to believe the smoke that Scott McClellan’s puffing well, I don’t know what to say:

“The role of a judge is very different from the role of a candidate or a political officeholder,” said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman.

Ms. Miers, Mr. McClellan said, “recognizes that personal views and ideology and religion have no role to play when it comes to making decisions on the bench.”

Oh sure. She’s never said a favorable word about Roe nor has she ever said anything that could remotely construed as supportive of the right to choose. She’s even denied she told Arlen Specter that she accepted Griswold (a position which even John Roberts embraced). Yet, somehow she’ll keep an open mind about it once she gets to the Court?

And all of a sudden “religion has no role to play,” but when Bush was touting her credentials to the religious Right her religion had everything to do with it. You can’t have it both ways, Mr. President. Well, you can try to have it both ways, but we’re not gonna let ya in this case.