Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,

The headline on a recent Joe Klein column in “Time” magazine (1/17/05) was “Where’s The Outrage?” He was writing about the Senate confirmation hearing of Judge Alberto Gonzales, President Bush’s choice to be the next Attorney General.

Mr. Klein’s point was that there should have been outrage --- but wasn’t --- because Judge Gonzales “was complicit, at the very least, in the Bush Administration’s decision to use severe physical interrogation techniques on detainees at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.” He complains that there was “nothing, not even a burp of public outrage.”

Well, I, too, have been wondering about where the outrage has been concerning Judge Gonzales’ conformation hearing. But, I’ve been thinking about a different subject --- abortion. I’ve been thinking, specifically, about the following exchange between Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Judge Gonzales:

Sen. Durbin: The last question is a brief one, and it may have been touched on earlier. But when Senator Ashcroft in your position aspired to this Cabinet-level appointment, he was asked about Roe versus Wade, which he disagreed with on a political basis, and his argument was he would enforce, in his words, "settled law," and Roe versus Wade was "settled law" in America. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but could you articulate in a few words your position about the enforcement of Roe versus Wade or any other court decision that you personally or politically disagree with?

Judge Gonzales: Thank you, Senator. Of course, the Supreme Court has recognized a right of privacy in our Constitution, and in Roe the court held that that right of privacy includes a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. A little over a decade ago, the court, in Casey, had an opportunity to revisit that issue. They made a -- they declined to overturn Roe, and of course made a new standard that any restriction that constituted an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose could not be sustained. My judgment is that the court has had an opportunity -- ample opportunities -- to look at this issue. It has declined to do so. And as far as I'm concerned, it is the law of the land and I will enforce it.

OK. So, where’s the outrage to this response by Judge Gonzales from the supposedly pro-life Christians and conservatives who worked enthusiastically for Mr. Bush’s re-election and voted for him? Where’s the outrage at Judge Gonzales’ refusal to say anything critical of the Roe v. Wade decision which is, arguably, the most appalling, un-Constitutional example of “judicial activism” in Supreme Court history --- a decision which simply invented a “right to privacy” which has resulted in the killing/murder of more than 40 million innocent unborn babies?

Before Judge Gonzales’ confirmation hearing, he was supported for Attorney General by, among others, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for Pat Robertson’s “American Center For Law And Justice;” Tom Minnery, head of Public Policy at “Focus On The Family:” and Gary Bauer, president of “American Values.”

I repeat: Where is the outrage to this response by Judge Gonzales from the supposedly pro-life Christian/conservative community? Mr. Sekulow? Mr. Minnery? Mr. Bauer? Anybody?

For God, Family, & the Republic,


Michael A. Peroutka