Republican betrayal of pro-lifers? Is there any question?

When Judge John Roberts came before the Senate Judiciary Committee for his appointment to the Court of Appeals on April 30, 2003, he was quoted as saying: "Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land.... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent...." On September 13, 2005, Sen. Arlen Specter asked Roberts at the Judiciary Committee hearings for his appointment for Chief Justice: "Do you mean settled for you, settled only foryour capacity as circuit judge, or settled beyond that?" Roberts was quoted as answering: "Well, beyond that." What does this mean? Can this mean anything else than that Roberts thinks that Roe is settled law, not just for Roberts himself, not just for Roberts as a circuit jduge, but for Roberts as Supreme Court justice?

Specter then turned turned the discussion with Roberts back to an earlier statement by John F. Kennedy when the latter was running for President. Specter said: "Your final statement as to this quotation: 'There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully aplying that precedent [Roe], as well as Casey [which reaffirmed Roe].' There have been questions raised about your personal views.... When you talk about your personal views and as they may relate to your own faith, would you say that your views are the same as those expressed by John Kennedy when he was a candidate, when he spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September of 1960, 'I do not speak for my church on public matters and the church does not speak for me'?" Roberts is said to have responded: "I agree with that, Senator, Yes."

When Sen. Dianne Feinstein asked Roberts about the separation of Church and State, Roberts replied: "My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in judging. When It comes to judging, I look to the law books and always have. I don't look to the Bible or any other religious source."

Should Roberts be denied Communion too?
Commenting on Roberts' remarks, Dale Vree, Editor of New Oxford Review writes in an editorial, "When Will Prolifers Wise Up?" (New Oxford Review, November 2005, p. 9):

So what's the difference between John Kerry and John Roberts? Kerry won't "impose" his religious beliefs on the nation, nor will Roberts. And Roberts regards Roe as "settled law," as does Kerry. If Kerry should be denied Holy Communion -- and we think he should -- then so should Roberts.

The most interesting thing that Vree points out, however, is an egregious inconsistency in the thinking of Catholic Neoconservative, Austin Ruse (pictured right), which, I'm afraid I must admit, is probably more common than not among our Neoconservative friends and fellow supporters of George Bush in the last U.S. presidential election. Vree writes:

Neoconservative Catholic honcho, Austin Ruse, said: "We condemn Senator Feinstein's attempt to place Judge Roberts' Catholicism at the center of his confirmation hearing.... Her questioning comes perilously close to a religious test for public office." Well, yes, it does. But Roberts -- who chose not to answer certain senatorial questions -- could have chosen not to answer this question, on the grounds of being a religious test. But he chose to answer it -- and cravenly. So, what does Ruse do? He condemns Feinstein rather than Roberts, who freely chose to dump his Catholicism. Ruse, a Bush loyalist, has his priorities out of whack.

This is a significant develpment -- more significant than I'd like to admit -- in light of the all-out support for Roberts from Republican loyalists from the ranks of the Christian Right (such as James Dobson, of Focus on the Family) and Neocon Catholics such as George Weigel and Republican Senator, Rick Santorum (pictured left). In his regular column in Crisis magazine in September, Santorum wrote: "President Bush could not have selected a better person [than Roberts] for the job.... Judge Roberts is the kind of judge America needs.... He strictly interprets the law, regardless of his personal political views."

Vree points out that to "strictly interpret the law," given the laws we've got, is to uphold Roe. To strike down Roe, we need justices with "personal political views" who know that abortion is evil, he says, just as racial segregation was evil (though less so), even when it was legal. Further -- and this is sobering -- Vree notes that Chief Justice William Rehnquist, whom Roberts replaces, was anti-Roe. When Rehnquist was a justice, the Supreme Court had six pro-Roe votes and three anti-Roe votes. Now with Roberts, abortion rights supports have another vote, and there are only two anti-Roe votes.

As of this writing, Alito has been nominated to fill the seat of Sandra Day O'Connor, who was pro-Roe. The verdict is still out on Alito. It's true that he has in the past rejected abortion as a right in certain decisions. Yet I have also heard it said (and haven't yet confirmed this) that he has voted in favor of one of the partial birth abortion rights decisions. If Alito turns out to be an anti-Roe justice, this will have the effect of merely returning the Supreme Court to the status quo ante -- six pro-Roe and three anti-Roe votes. If Alito turns out to be pro-Roe, there will be seven pro-Roe votes and two anti-Roe votes.

Prolifers who refused to vote for John Kerry acted prudentially, for Kerry was brazenly and openly pro-abortion and flagrantly disregarded the sacramental precepts of his own Catholic Church. Yet those prolifers who voted for Bush in hopes that he was their man will have achieved nothing and may very likely have suffered a grave setback. Bush had every opportunity during his second term to make legislative decisions and Supreme Court appointments that would have achieved major gains for the pro-life cause in the United States. He had a majority in the two houses of Congress behind him. He is in his second term and has nothing to lose. Instead, he has squandered his opportunities. Vree concludes his remarks on the following depressing note: "It's amazing that so many prolifers place their trust in Republican politicians. It's such a waste of time, talent, and treasure."

I would close on a more hopeful, but more personally demanding, note: Whatever your party affiliation, however you voted, hold your elected officials responsible. If you voted Republican, as I did, let your elected officals know you feel utterly betrayed and will not let the GOP exploit your prolife vote only to sweep your concerns under the rug once elected. My wife is actually in a position where what she says might have some clout along these lines, since she knows some of our state officials and has worked with them. If you are a Democrat, work for retrieval of prolife family values within the Democratic party officials. Insist on making your voice heard. A democracy is classified among the poorer forms of government, according to Aristotle's analysis, but among those pooer forms, it's one of the better, and individuals can make some difference, for what it's worth.