Obama: I Don't Have an Abortion Litmus Test, But...
AP
Updated 3:12 pm Eastern
Asked if he would consider nominating a judge to the Supreme Court who does not support abortion rights, President Obama said today that, like presidents before him, he is not applying a "litmus test" on that or any issue.
But he went on to say that he wants "somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women's rights. And that's going to be something that is very important to me."
"Part of what our core Constitutional values promote is the notion that individuals are protected in their privacy and their bodily integrity, and women are not exempt from that," the president added. He said he is "somebody who believes that women should have the ability to make often very difficult decisions about their own bodies and issues of reproduction."
In remarks before a meeting with Congressional leaders to discuss candidates for the Supreme Court seat coming open with the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens, Mr. Obama said he was hoping to replicate the "smooth, civil, thoughtful nomination process and confirmation process" that occurred for his first Supreme Court pick, Sonia Sotomayor.
He said he excepted to announce his pick before May 26th, when the Sotomayor pick was announced, and hoped to do so earlier; "my hope," he said, "is that we're going to be able to get a Supreme Court nominee confirmed in time for the next session."
The president said it is important to "get this process wrapped up" quickly so that the new justice is prepared to deal with the important cases that the court will address in the fall.
The four senators present for the meeting were Majority Leader Harry Reid, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the top senators on the judiciary committee, Democrat Patrick Leahy and Republican Jeff Sessions.
The president said the four men had come to the White House to "consult with me" and that he is "interested in hearing their thoughts and concerns before any final decisions are made."
At the outset of his comments, Mr. Obama lauded Stevens as "one of the finest Supreme Court justices that we have seen."
He said Stevens "operated with extraordinary integrity and fidelity to the law" and that while his are "tough shoes to fill," he is confident that he will tap a nominee that will earn the confidence of the Senate and the country and will deliver "evenhanded justice to all Americans."
After the meeting, the president called nine members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, three of them Republicans, according to the White House. The list included Sens. Orrin Hatch, Diane Feinstein, Lindsey Graham, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Arlen Specter, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jon Kyl and Amy Klobuchar.
Popular in Politics
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 473 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 116 Comments
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test 68 Comments
- Will tornado relief funding escape politics? 47 Comments
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 220 Comments
Yep - they are only pro-birth, not pro-life.
______________
that's just a lie, by the pro-choice crowd.....my church and many other nearby towns, have programs to assist pregnant mothers after they have their babies, if they choose life instead of abortion....these groups or organization doesn't just wash their hands after the birth, they follow through and help with adoption, post-birth care, and helping the mother beyond birth.
"it won't change the fact that abortion is, and will remain, legal."
Think about it - if they outlawed it, they wouldn't be able to pull the puppet strings of those one-issue voters any more!
____________
Is that why we (the GOP) hasn't moved to have the Supreme Court make a decision on abortion ? because we want to manipulate a couple one-issue voters ?? that's a little silly
How about we don't wish to make it illegal, because we feel it would be an invasion of privacy, that could be the reason....that doesn't take away our defense of the innocent unborn child.
Don't talk to me about morals - I don't think you have any other than attempting to control others' lives.
____________
When a doctor saves a patient from dying, is he "attempting to control others' lives" ?? of course not.
Just because we have concern for an innocent life, who has no advocates, does not mean we wish to "control other's lives".....that's what your healthcare bill does, controls our lives, how we will be insured, how we will be treated, how much we can earn (doctors), and so on.....control is what you and the liberals have done.....protecting life isn't controlling anything other then a "control" of legalized or organized slaughter.
God isnt against killing, he is against murder. So, if yo uare a Christian and have read the Bible, you would understand that.
Now, I do see a lot of hypocritical Christians. They stand on the sideline, yelling about how abortion is murder (and it is). But then they do nothing to help these mothers or children. So, I am in agreement with you on many that fall into this category.
The issues for the times ahead are going to be testing the constitutional edges that are loosely defined or not even defined at all.
Campaign reform will be one of the biggest hottest topics that test the balance of rights between corporations and individuals since a disparity of access to wealth can make the difference between a candidate financed by one or the other under the first amendment guarantees. A recent supreme court ruling declared an individual the same as a corporation. Since campaigns require money, access to wealth spells the winner, which will make grass roots campaigns obsolete, unless campaign finance reform is addressed.
Some historians agree that the fall of the Roman Empire was architected by the power struggle between the voter rights of citizens and the corporations. The decay that ensued permitted invaders to defeat the empire, after citizens lost their representation power and their will to defend their country.
Thats means the only difference between the unborn blob and a full grown blob is size. that in term means that
if I had no use for a certain individual then I should be exercising my constitution "rights" if I aborted him/her.
Makes no sense?? Exactly, neither does aborting an unborn child, which btw we all were at one time.
We don't have the right to murder someone!
When men can carry to term, and give birth, you can then (ahem) bellyache
____________
Bellyache ? I was just informing the commentator that she was a little off-base, as you are.
When Women have to kill enemies in the defense of this country, then Women can be permitted to discuss the military....until you lug a 50-100 lb pack, you may not discuss anything related to the military......nobody can discuss the homeless until we become a bum ourselves ? Your comment is stupid and not very well thought out.....Does a doctor of Gynocology and Obstetrics, who is a man........is he permitted to discuss Abortion/Birth, even though he didn't "carry to term" as a woman ?
is that how you want it ?
Fetus
Obstetris 1. The unborn child developing in the uterus?after the embryonic stage, circa age 7 to 8 wks to birth 2.
According to the 'McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine.
Maybe McGraw-Hill is wrong, Joe.
You'll convince me abortion should be outlawed only when humanity is an endangered species. In the meantime, although I don't think it should be done casually, I'll never be for refusing a woman her right to choose.
______________
Sorry for your misunderstanding.....I wasn't even discussing "refusing a woman her right to choose".....I was responding to your comment, that it "wasn't a child" when Concise Medical Dictionaries do call, a Human Fetus a "unborn child".
That's been your debating point, that it wasn't a child, it was a "Fetus"....well, it's both
McGraw-Hill is very respected publisher in the academic world....they aren't wrong.
I also don't think it should be "outlawed", but at some point, we have to respect all human life, otherwise we are just hypocrits about other country's human rights like China.
Abortion has no business being a political game? a sound bite to make the evening news. It is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. If you have a moral dilemma or a religious issue, then don?t have an abortion. It really is that simple. Trust me. I know.
Abortion is not a dirty word and I am sick and tired of watching holier than thou white men in Congress pretending that they have any concept of what a woman goes through when making such an important decision. For some women it is a time of great sadness ? a pregnancy gone wrong, a wanted child not to be. For some women it is a time of great relief ? a decision to delay parenthood. It is a deeply, personal decision made for deeply, personal reasons. And, yes, for some women it is a decision they choose not to make ? again for deeply personal reasons.
Conservative hypocrites: if you want to reduce abortions, vote to fully fund family planning and comprehensive sex education. Otherwise, shut the he11 up. We don?t care what you think about our wombs.
Women everywhere should hang a closed sign across their hoo-hoo?s until these worthless screamers are either voted out of Congress or grow a vagina of their own."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the unborn human is equally the man's then it is the woman's.....they share the identical amount of genetic material from both parents.....It's not YOUR body, it's a seperate body within your body.....Fathers can not have concern for their children ? they have to "grow a vagina" to have any right to have an opinion on the fate of their offspring ?
All that "personal decisions" and heart-wrenching "deeply personal reasons".....those "deep decisions" should have been made before/when you copulated, not after the fact.
What does the ethnic makeup or gender of Congress have anything to do with your comment ? there are blacks, hispanics and women in congress....it's not all "white men".