Skip to main content

Why I Have Declined a Seat on the Alito Bandwagon

By Angela Wittman

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways. (James 1:8, KJV)

Now that Samuel Alito has been confirmed to the supreme Court, I have received numerous endorsements, praises and letters of applause from leading conservative organizations who are riding high on his appointment to the supreme Court as a pro-life victory... But is it really? Or have these groups been taken for a ride?

As for me, I have declined to take a seat on the Alito bandwagon, and here are just a few reasons why:

On November 15, 2005, it was reported in the Associated Press article "Alito Downplays 1985 Abortion Statement" that when Sen. Dianne Feinstein had questioned Judge Alito about a document in which he stated to the Reagan administration that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" he evasively replied "I was an advocate seeking a job...I'm now a judge...I'm not an advocate, I don't give heed to my personal views..." His response is neither decisive nor forthright, but reeks of cowardice.

Then I read news reports that pointed out that Judge Alito had previously ruled on four pro-life cases, and three of the four rulings were against the pro-life position:
  • In 1997, in Alexander v. Whitman, Alito concurred with the appellate court's decision that a fetus is not a person under the equal protection clause of the Constitution. A woman who delivered a stillborn baby had challenged a New Jersey law, arguing that she should be able to file a wrongful death lawsuit.
  • In 2000, in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, Alito was among the judges who invalidated a New Jersey law banning late-term abortions. He cited the high court's decision on a Nebraska statute.
  • In 1995, in Blackwell v. Knoll, Alito cited federal government policy in voting to invalidate Pennsylvania restrictions on publicly funded abortions for women who are victims of rape or incest. (These excerpts are from the news report “Alito’s abortion stance tough to decipher,” USA Today, Nov. 26, 2005, URL: www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-26-alitoabortionstance_x.htm )

These rulings caused some pro-life leaders to be concerned about Judge Alito’s nomination, but publicity of their concern was soon drowned out by the accolades of wealthier, more neocon friendly conservative groups, which do not represent all pro-lifers and Constitutionalists.

Now I am wondering if the "pro-family groups" applauding the appointment of Judge Alito are resting easy since they think they have won a major victory? I pray their conscience will keep them awake at night, and they will quickly come to the conclusion that the heinous sin of child-sacrifice cannot be condoned any longer for any reason or exception. I also hope that as they lay claim to be winning the war on child killing through incremental compromise, they will see the reality that they are contributing to the continuance of the preborn babies being murdered. Then perhaps we will see a pro-life victory take place, and the popular “pro-family” groups will demand real change by supporting men who are not double-minded when it comes to child sacrifice. But until this takes place, I will continue to decline a seat on the neocon bandwagon.

Comments

Popular Posts (All Time)

A discerning look at 'Biblical Patriarchy' and those who abuse it

By Angela Wittman While much of what Doug Phillips teaches regarding Patriarchy sounds biblical, because of the lack of practical application, his teachings are often taken to extremes. Sometimes, men just hear his vision of men always “leading,” and they become domineering and demanding, causing undue stress on the wife. I know of one family that divorced precisely because of hearing this teaching and not understanding what it really should be. Sometimes, men will try to emulate what they see in Doug Phillips, and start requiring their families to have all the same rules as the Phillips. Unfortunately, if there are no personal convictions behind the rules, they soon become extremely oppressive and smother the family. Some men just have no clue about how to “lead” their families; they just know that it’s being constantly preached at them from the pulpit. Having come from a home without a godly leader, these men need lots of practical examples. (Taken from: Doug Phillips’ Kangaroo Court

'Of Saving Faith'

The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter XIV Of Saving Faith I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, [1] is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, [2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word, [3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened. [4] II. By this faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein; [5] and acts differently upon that which each particular passage thereof contains; yielding obedience to the commands, [6] trembling at the threatenings, [7] and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. [8] But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. [9] III. This faith is differ

A discerning look at Ted Weiland's "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective"

By Angela Wittman I believe I have found within the Scriptures the key to what made America great, and this key can restore her to her former greatness. - Ted Weiland, ( Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution; The Christian Perspective , http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-preface.html) A couple of years ago Ted Weiland contacted me and asked if he might send me his primer on  Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective . After receiving and reviewing the primer, I decided to toss it in the trash due to the concern that Mr. Weiland was missing a foundational point - Biblical covenanting.  And after recently reviewing his work in greater detail, I believe the reformed and theonomic community should be cautious about Mr. Weiland's book and his beliefs. Due to some glaring "red flags" I encountered while researching Mr. Weiland, I've decided to write this warning and state my concerns. First of a