"The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's [sic] right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion," Harriet Miers told a Dallas women's group in 1993, according to an explosive report in today's Washington Post. Miers then explained how "we gave up" the notion of "legislating religion or morality" years ago. "[W]hen science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act." Leaving a dissection of Miers's flawed argument for some other blogger, it's enough for this discussion that Miers's argument is a pro-abortion rights argument straight from the Planned Parenthood playbook.

In 1989, Harriet Miers ran for the Dallas city council as a pro-life candidate. Four years later, she endorsed the right to an abortion using loaded language and code words familiar to those on the pro-choice (my apologies for the loaded language) side of the debate. In 2005, according to Christian conservatives mesmerized by President Bush, Miers is definitely pro-life. George W. Bush claimed to know Harriet Miers "well enough to be able to say that she's not going to change; that 20 years from now she'll be the same person with the same philosophy that she has today." The philosophy Miers holds today is anyone's guess. Her oblique 1993 lecture about the dangers of legislating morality and the scientific ambiguity about when life begins, in addition to other information streaming out, makes that guess more of an educated one every day.

Bush is either inept, a coward, or a closet liberal. He's done nothing to restrain federal spending and he's picked two stealth candidates for the SC, and he hastily engaged in and stupidly prosecuted the war in Iraq. Conservatives have received nothing from the Bush administration but a tax cut which will be paid for by future generations and a handful of conservative judges in the appellate courts. Whoop-dee-effing-doo.

Miers is not serious conservative jurist material, regardless of whether she's pro- or anti-federally forced legalization of abortion. I guess the point is that the ONE excuse that Bush may have had to appoint Miers--the assumption that she'd vote to overturn Roe--is turning out false. What a disaster.

How tedious is a line like "'we gave up' a long time ago on 'legislating religion or morality'"?

Legislating "morality" is almost the only thing that legislation does. Anyone who makes such a silly claim is an ideologue or an idiot, certainly not someone capable of being a SC judge.

Indeed, coerced morality (on some scale) is the very definition of law.

As for Miers, I think this statement will be the final nail in the coffin. Liberals will oppose her on the suspicion that she may now be pro-life, conservatives will oppose her for a variety of reasons, not the least of which will be the suspicion that she is pro-abortion. Good-bye Harriet.

Dan is right that 1)this comment can be dissected from a variety of different angles; and, 2) probably right that this is a pro-abortion statement.

With that said, one could argue that if the Federal Government did not legislate morality at all, but rather left such decisions of the "public/greater good" to the States, we would be much better off as a country. As it is now, our one-size-fits-all legal regime doesn't acknowledge the needs of different peoples in different parts of the country. If California wants to smoke pot, and legalize any crazy flavor-of-the-week issue, then they should be able to. The people of Kansas, though, should be able to do exactly the opposite.

It is this framework that has "divided our country", led to average Americans' sense that they are ruled by Washington, and has led to the death of any sense of a local civic responsibility. If the abortion issue were ever returned to the States, this would be a major shift in that framework, and I firmly believe we would see (virtually overnight) a renaissance in Statewide political service and interest. Though...I don't think this lady is the one to make that dream a reality.

But by chance, perhaps, hopefully, maybe, possibly, that is what she meant to say.

Homer: When I started reading the Post article, I initially thought that she was making an anti-Roe speech for the reasons you articulate. Miers reference to "self-determination," I initially thought, was in relation to states determining their own laws--like a popular sovereignty argument. That, necessarily, would put us on a pre-Roe legal footing. Alas, as I read on it became obvious that by "self-determination" she meant the ability of a woman to determine to end her unborn baby's life without interference of law.

Bush has not and has never been a conservative. Why do people find it surprising when he doesn't act like one?

Doesn't matter. She be gone.