Senator Babs Boxer: USSC makeup only worth mentioning when she disagrees with ruling
As expected, the feministas are having a fit over the recent USSC ruling on partial birth abortion where, in a 5-4 vote, Justices upheld the partial birth abortion ban passed by Congress & signed into law by the President back in 2003. Leading the charge to ‘protect a woman’s right to choose’ is Senator Barbara Boxer who, along with House Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), has proposed legislation aimed at ‘codifying’ abortion:
WASHINGTON (AFP) – Two US lawmakers introduced legislation Thursday aimed at codifying a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy, one day after the Supreme Court banned a controversial late-term abortion procedure.
The proposed law would codify abortion rights for the first time, said Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), who joined the effort launched by Senator Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record).
The legislation “would bar government — at any level — from interfering with a woman’s fundamental right to choose to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy,” Nadler said.
“We can no longer rely on the Supreme Court to protect a woman’s constitutional right to choose” he said.
“This Supreme Court may have gone out of the business of protecting women’s rights; it is time that Congress stand up to the challenge.”
I was mildly amused to see Boxer’s statement on her website in response to the PBA ruling, where she invoked the ‘conservative’ makeup of the USSC as if to suggest that the ruling was based on ideology rather than the rule of law:
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today made the following statement:
“Today’s decision brings home in clear terms the impact of President Bush’s Supreme Court choices. As a result of today’s ruling, the health of women who have dangerous pregnancies is now in deep jeopardy. Women who are in need of this banned procedure will be denied it, even if they risk losing their fertility, becoming paralyzed, or sustaining organ damage. The consequences of today’s dangerous decision can only be overcome by a shift back to the center on the Supreme Court, or by passage of my Freedom of Choice Act, which I will be reintroducing in the near future.”
But back when the court issued it’s unfavorable to Bush ruling on the EPA and global warming, Boxer didn’t bother to note the makeup of the USSC – because she thought the ruling was a vindication for gw alarmists:
Senator Boxer said, “This decision puts the wind at our back. It takes away the excuse the administration has been using for not taking action to deal with global warming pollution. We will be calling the EPA before the committee later this month to ask them how they plan to use their authority under the Clean Air Act to begin to address the challenge of global warming. We now have a two-track process for addressing global warming – comprehensive legislation and administrative action.”
So the gw decison had nothing to do with the ‘ideological makeup’ of the court, but the one on PBA did?
Gotcha, Babs.
And BTW, isn’t it interesting that Boxer and Nadler are basically trying to ‘override’ the USSC ruling with this legislation? I want to emphasize that statement by Nadler again:
The legislation “would bar government — at any level — from interfering with a woman’s fundamental right to choose to bear a child, or to terminate a pregnancy,” Nadler said.
Heh. Do they really think a law like that would stand up to USSC scrutiny?
Now just imagine if the President had done the same thing after the USSC ruling on the Gitmo … we’d hear cries of “King George” all over the place (moreso than we do already).
Democrats: Do as we say, not as we do.
Update: Speaking of moonbat Senators, Joe Biden is blaming the VTech massacre on …..
Republicans.