PoliticsSupreme Court

SCOTUS Watch: Judge Roberts’ Wife Ran Pro-life Group

So, if they cannot attack Judge Roberts they will go after his wife, Jane. The Boston Globe has Judge Roberts’ Wife Ran Pro-life Group.

Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts has made conflicting statements over the years on Roe v Wade – calling it “settled law” during his 2003 appellate court confirmation hearings but “wrongly decided” while he served as deputy solicitor general.

There’s no doubt, however, where his wife comes down on the hotbutton issue of abortion.

“The role of his lawyer wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, in Feminists for Life, a group dedicated to overturning Roe v. Wade, is . . . certain to raise liberal eyebrows,” reports today’s Boston Globe.

In fact, Mrs. Roberts once served as executive vice president for the pro-life group.

On the Feminists for Life web site, the group’s mission statement explains:

“Feminists for Life recognizes that abortion is a reflection that our society has failed women. We are dedicated to systematically eliminating the root causes that drive women to abortion – primarily lack of practical resources and support – through holistic woman-centered solutions.

“Women deserve better than abortion,” the mission statement continues.

“Feminists for Life continues the tradition of early American feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, who opposed abortion.”

The Borkinization of Judge John Roberts has started.

What class!

Attack his wife for her political beliefs and activism.

And here is a blog from the LEFT, And Now for More Political Back-scratching.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Daily Pundit has That Didn’t Take Long, Did It?

3 thoughts on “SCOTUS Watch: Judge Roberts’ Wife Ran Pro-life Group

  1. The Los Angeles Times had an innuendo filled, "look! she's an extremist" article on the front page today. Who knows why they think it matters. What's almost funny about the attempt is that they probably have completely mischaracterized Feminists For Life — we have links to a couple of liberal blogs that view the group favorably here. Nice — go after the nominee's wife AND get the stroy wrong!

  2. I guess the I am a conservative therefore I feel no need to think for myself attitude is so prevalent. I most certainly did not attack Ms. Sullivan. I pointed out that there is, at the very least, an appearance of political back-scratching by the administration. Considering the many appearances of impropriety with regards to the financial gains to be made in the rebuilding of Iraq and to whom those financial gains are limited, this is par for the course.

    If you had actually read any of the posts related to the Roberts' on my blog, you'd know have neither mischaracterized the Roberts', nor attacked them.

    If you paid attention to the fundagelical movement, they too are going on about the association with Feminists for Life and how that bodes well for their movement. Since it's significantly less common for a man who would support choice to be married to a woman who is an ardant opponent of it, people are making a legitimate inference that John Roberts is quite the opponent as well.

    I'll check out the LA Times article, but I doubt they've mischaracterized the organization. Try arguing the pro-choice side with someone from Feminists for life and you will see they don't quite stick to their mission statement (as a matter of fact, I've never heard them reference most of what's in that statement – only the "feminists" know that women who terminate commit infanticide statements and statements that they, as feminists, know that termination is never right for any woman in any circumstance. Frankly, I don't think there is any person that knows what is and isn't right for every person regardless of the circumstances).

  3. Pingback: University Blog

Comments are closed.