fbpx

One of the hardest things for us to do is to stay focused on the goal while we work through the issues and opportunities that may – or may not – lead us there.

When we look at the Supreme Court Nominees and how our Senators Murkowski and Sullivan vote regarding their confirmations, we have to ask a couple focusing questions:

  1. If confirmed, what affect will this nomination have, primarily, on a Roe v Wade hearing?
  2. If confirmed, what affect will this nomination have on our ability to finish the work here at home?

I have to remind myself early and often that, as great as overturning Roe v Wade would be for our nation, it would mean a much more difficult job here at home if we haven’t ended legalized child killing here first.  Here’s why:

  1. Alaska abortion law predates Roe v Wade.  This means that when Roe v Wade is overturned, the issue is returned to the states.  So nothing effectively changes here, except that people won’t keep saying that state abolition laws are pointless.  With Roe gone, more people will be emboldened to act (that’s a good thing!).
  2. Alaska is among the most liberal abortion states in the Union.  If you care to read it, AS 18.16.010, makes it clear that the restrictions on abortion are so liberal one can barely say they exist.  This means that Alaska would be one of roughly four states that would see massive increases in pro-abortion funding and activism – because the statutory limitations on abortion are so trivial.
  3. If our efforts here at home don’t stay focused on the person in the womb – Personhood, it’s called – then our activism, advocacy, bills and laws will all reside on a subjective foundation that abortion proponents can and will chip away at.

WHO IS BRETT KAVANAUGH?

Excerpted from:

Judicial Action Group Brief Summary of Potential Supreme Court Nominees, June 28, 2018

1. Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh – Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit[1]

Male, Age 53.  Born: 2/12/65, Washington, D.C.  Yale (J.D.) (B.A.)

  • 2006 – present, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
  • 2003 – 2006, Assistant to the President, Staff Secretary, President George W. Bush
  • 2001 – 2003, Assoc. Counsel to President George W. Bush
  • 1997 – 1998, 1999 to 2001, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis (private practice in D.C.)
  • 1994 – 1997 (1998), Assoc. Counsel, Special Counsel, Ken Starr (Investigation of President Bill Clinton)
  • 1993 – 1994, Law Clerk, United States Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy
  • 1992 – 1993, Attorney, Office of United States Solicitor General,
  • 1991 – 1992, Law Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, Judge Alex Kozinski
  • 1990 – 1991, Law Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit, Judge Walter Stapleton

Read more HERE.

2. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts Both Distorted the Text of the Obamacare Law by Claiming that imposed a “Tax.”

Though his is only opinion, and was not part of the court at the time, would Kavanaugh have joined the four liberal members of the court preserved Obamacare by declaring it a tax?

Get the full report HERE.

3.  Kavanaugh’s role in the Garza Minor Illegal Alien Abortion Case Presents Concerns.  In Garza, a pregnant minor was detained at the US Border as an illegal alien, then sought an abortion.  The case was heard by Kavanaugh and two other judges.

The case resulted in a baby dying in her mother’s womb.

Kavanaugh dissented, but in his dissent, it seems he assumed that the illegal alien minor had a constitutional right to kill the baby in her womb.  Read more HERE.

4.  Kavanaugh’s dissent in the Priests for Life Case is concerning.  In essence, Kavanaugh conceded that the government has a compelling interest in forcing religious organizations to pay for abortion causing products and services in complete opposition to their deeply held religious beliefs.

“… it comes as no surprise that Justice Kennedy’s opinion expressly referred to a ‘compelling’ governmental interest in facilitating women’s access to contraception [by forcing religious organizations to facilitate contraception and abortifacients].”[1]

Get the full report HERE.

5.  Is Roe v Wade the law of the land?  During his 2006 confirmation hearings, Senator Schumer asked about Roe v Wade.  While there’s more to just this quote to be considered, we must consider it.

“Senator, on the question of Roe v. Wade, if confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be binding precedent of the Court. It’s been decided by the Supreme Court–“

Watch the video HERE – starting at 54:25

For references and sources, get the full report HERE.

So as we get to know Brett Kavanaugh, my encouragement to you hasn’t changed:
  • Our work here at home needs to stay focused on establishing the right to life to all, from conception to natural death.
  • Senators Murkowski and Sullivan must confirm a Supreme Court Justice whose sense of duty originates with, and is consistent with their oath:  to the Constitution of the United States of America.

SIGN THE PETITION

 

Be Sociable, Share!