Washington, DC — “This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman’s right to choose and recognized the importance of women’s health. Today’s decision blatantly defies the Court’s recent decision in 2000 striking down a state partial-birth abortion law because of its failure to provide an exception for the health of the mother. As the Supreme Court recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973, this issue is complex and highly personal; the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.”
I really find it both interesting and disgusting that she has chosen to attack the Supreme Court on the grounds of “Erosion of Our Constitutional Rights.” Legal scholars (including those that are pro-abortion) understand and have stated that Roe v. Wade was indeed bad law (which makes it itself the Erosion of Constitutional Rights) even if they agree with that landmark decision as to policy. Here you have patently “political” (in its worst sense) pandering to voting blocks as though she gives a single hoot about the Constitution. Just wait until she chimes in on the shooting at Virginia Polytechnic University and starts jibber jabbering about repealing of the 2nd Amendment and she will do so without a word about “erosion of our Constitutional rights.” P.S. John Edwards has now taken his position on yesterdays decision …. “I could not disagree more strongly.” In other words (I suppose) there is nothing that is more important to him than the right to Infanticide, ….. but he is a pretender not a contender.