National Pro-Life Action Center Op-Ed By Stephen G. Peroutka

WASHINGTON, July 21 /U.S. Newswire/ — The following is an Op-Ed by Stephen G. Peroutka, chairman, National Pro-Life Action Center:

Commentary: Lucyb&Charlie Brownb&and the Football

bRoe v. Wade is the settled law of the landb& therebs nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.b Thus spoke Judge John Roberts in his confirmation hearing before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003. In the next three months, many pro-lifers including myself are going to be asked to forget that Judge Roberts ever said that. Webre going to be told that those words are overshadowed by his actions. As I write this, not more than 12 hours after President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts for the vacant Supreme Court seat formerly held by Justice Sandra Day- ObConnor, I am already feeling a little lonely.

Already many pro-life and religious leaders are ignoring this statement by Judge John Roberts. We are being told that Judge Roberts is pro-life, that he is a strict constructionist, and that he has co-wrote briefs that argued the pro-life cause. But itbs tough for me to forget those words that Judge Roberts uttered in 2003. What is it in those words that I donbt understand and that everybody else does.

bRoe v. Wade is the settled law of the landb& therebs nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.b

In the next few months, people will tell you that those words are words that have to be said by any prospective federal court jurist. Webll be told: bHe doesnbt really mean that. He just has to say that to be confirmed.b If this be true, I wonder if such a confirmation process is worthy of our government or produces a worthy nominee who acquiesces to it. Must our judicial nominees answer questions with a bwink and nod?b I hope not.

Other pro-life and religious leaders will urge us to forget about the bwink and nodb nuance of the judgebs statement. Theybll argue that the statement is valid; that itbs a valid pro-life statement within its four corners. Some may argue that itbs our duty to uphold any law thatbs written. Anything less would be un-American.

It doesnbt matter that no law says that Terri Schiavo should be starved to death. If a judge ordered it, then it must be so. It doesnbt matter that no law exists that says that the Ten Commandments must be removed from an Alabama courthouse. If a judge ordered it, then it must be so.

And so it will be argued that it is right and proper for you, me, any pro-lifer or any Christian to say that though we do not agree with a particular law, it is our duty to carry out that law, no matter how unjust it is. Well folks, if we believe this, then we owe a great apology to the defendants at the Nuremburg trial.

In the years after World War II, we as a country and as a world declared that men canbt hide behind unjust laws. We declared at that time that the laws of nature and naturebs God take precedence over unjust decrees, even when those decrees are wrapped in the guise of law. After Nuremberg, this nation and other nations have repeatedly seconded the motion that right and wrong come to us from God and not from the order of a despot or the whim of a majority.

And so again I ponder the judgebs words:

bRoe v. Wade is the settled law of the landb&therebs nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.b

I just canbt act like Judge Roberts never said it. I canbt nuance it away or explain it away as proper reaction to an unjust law.

In the next three months itbs going to get awfully lonely for some pro-lifers and Christians. Every bone in my body wants to join the wave that I think is coming. That wave will express great satisfaction with President Bush and with his nominee.

We will be told that NARAL hates him, so shouldnbt we love him? And maybe I will come to love him. Maybe I will come to believe that Judge Roberts is the first step in bringing this country back to a respect for life. Perhaps Judge Roberts will be the liberator of the doomed unborn whose numbers still exceed one million per year in the United States alone. Perhaps youbll see me on that bandwagon. But not right now. I just canbt get those words out of my head:

bRoe v. Wade is the settled law of the landb& therebs nothing in my personal views that will prevent me from fully applying and upholding that precedent.b

I pray that the judgebs words in the upcoming confirmation hearing will help me come to trust this man, Judge John Roberts, with the fates of all those unborn children.

The NARALbs, the N.O.W.bs, the Kennedybs, the Schumer’s and the Durbinbs of the world, who all believe that Judge Roberts is more pro-life than Judie Brown, Mother Theresa and Pope John Paul II combined, can be relied on for one thing: By the end of their questioning, Judge Roberts will reveal himself as either a bonafide pro-life, strict constructionist, or as just another in a long line of Republican-nominated supporters of the culture of death.

The ball is in your court, Judge Roberts. Please, please convince me.

——-

Stephen G. Peroutka is chairman of the National Pro-Life Action Center on Capitol Hill (NPLAC) and a Maryland attorney. Peroutka is the host of two talk radio programs and a national T.V. show, Face the Truth. He is the co-founder of The Institute on the Constitution, an outreach program designed to re-instill the precepts of Constitutional government to our country. He also serves on the board of directors of the Conservative Caucus, the board of directors of Pro-Life Maryland, and is the founder of the National Pro-Life Appreciation Annual Dinner.

http://www.usnewswire.com