President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the US Supreme Court has abortion rights advocates in an uproar. Everywhere you look, liberals are screaming for hearings on the order of the Spanish Inquisition to lay bare every single aspect of Roberts' views on the subject of "Reproductive Rights."

There's no shortage of nuance and insinuation, either. In a recent (1)Washington Post article, President Bush was said to have "...nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court last night, passing over several female candidates...". That of course is partly to portray Bush as being prejudiced against women. If one makes that assumption, then one might also assume that John Roberts shares that prejudice and as such would be prone to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The Post article goes on to note that as Deputy Solicitor General under the elder President Bush, Roberts signed a brief on abortion financing that argued in a footnote that Roe v. Wade should be overturned because it "finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution."

What many liberals ignore, and I was frankly surprised to find this in the same Post article, is the following quote from Roberts regarding Roe vs. Wade:
"There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

At first glance one might get the impression that the previous two quotes are at odds with each other. When viewed in their proper context however, it's easy to see that there is no contradiction whatsoever. When Roberts claimed there was no support for abortion in the Constitution, he was working on behalf of the former Bush administration and was therefore stating the views of his boss. In the second quote, he was speaking during his confirmation hearing for the appellate bench in 2003. While working as Deputy Solicitor General, his personal views were irrelevant to the performance of his duties. In other words, this is a man who does not allow his personal feelings to interfere with his work. That would make him an absolute gem on the US Supreme Court.

So, why does Planned Parenthood have its collective panties in a knot over John Roberts?

(2)Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, on its website, says the following:
"The nomination of John G. Roberts raises serious questions and grave concerns for women's health and safety. It is particularly troubling that Roberts went on the record calling for Roe v. Wade to be overturned when he served as a lawyer for the government," said Karen Pearl, interim president of PPFA. "Only a nominee committed to protecting women's health and safety should be confirmed by the Senate. A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court requires a confirmation process that is thoughtful, intelligent, and fully deliberated -- the Senate owes the American public nothing less."

At the national level, (3)Planned Parenthood has started "Roe Call." This is a petition drive that seeks to send two million signatures to Washington to demand that John Roberts tell the world his opinion of abortion. The ad for the petition reads as follows:
Do you want John Roberts to reveal his views about a woman's right to choose abortion before the Senate votes on whether to elevate him to the U.S. Supreme Court? If you're like more than half of Americans, your answer is a resounding yes. Join us in demanding that Roberts let us know if he will uphold the protections for women's health guaranteed by Roe v. Wade, or if he believes this decision should be overturned.

Perhaps these folks don't read the Washington Post? As an aside, it's worth noting that just because "more than half of Americans" would like to know his views on abortion, that does not necessarily mean that all those Americans are pro-choice. It's a good bet that many Americans who are interested in this matter want to be sure he's pro-life. Planned Parenthood has a tendency to leave out little details like that.

There is a simple reason why Planned Parenthood and other abortion rights groups are afraid of John Roberts (and any other Bush nominee): MONEY. The business of killing the unborn is hugely profitable, and those who stand to lose if Roe vs. Wade is overturned are scrambling to protect their interests. In the United States, over one million abortions are performed annually. Roughly ninety percent of these are first-trimester abortions. The cost of first-trimester abortions generally runs from $350 to $650. Late-term abortions can easily exceed $2000.

(4)According to figures compiled by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the abortion industry rakes in more than 900 million dollars annually in fees. Add to this the fact that the largest provider of abortions, Planned Parenthood, receives 250 million dollars per year in government grants, and you have an industry with a billion-dollar annual income.

Realistically, there is little chance that Roe vs. Wade will ever be overturned. All levels of the judiciary have a tendency to follow precedent. But, with this kind of money potentially at stake, is it any wonder that these people want a liberal Supreme Court?

Liberals love to refer to big business as being "cut-throat." But there's only one business on the planet that specializes in cutting the throats of the unborn.

*************

Sources:

(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071900725_pf.html

(2) http://www.ppnne.org/site/DocServer/roberts_Press_Release_PPFA_FINAL.pdf?docID=2541

(3) http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/getinvolved/takeaction/main.xml

(4) http://abortionismurder.org/HTML/PlainText/I-E-1-profit.html

Alan Burkhart is a freelance political writer. You can contact him via e-mail at alan@alanburkhart.com. To read more of his work, visit http://www.alanburkhart.com/index.html.