Why Pro-Life People Must Oppose a Vote on Obama SCOTUS Nominee Merrick Garland

Opinion   |   Kristan Hawkins   |   Mar 17, 2016   |   6:09PM   |   Washington, DC

The process of picking a Supreme Court Justice has become a complicated and emotionally wrought procedure, one that deals more with ideology than actual jurisprudence. The nation has every right to have a Supreme Court with justices on the bench that adhere to the U.S. Constitution and balances the other two branches of government, performing their duties as the original Founding Fathers envisioned.

Unfortunately, the process of choosing a Supreme Court Justice is laced with landmines because rulings in the not-so-distant past that clearly did not follow the Constitution have become the law of the land, much to the dismay of a good deal of the American population. Hence, the process of nominating a justice is an incredibly important aspect of a presidency and President Barack Obama’s latest pick of Judge Merrick Garland, is no different.

When Garland’s name was announced, stories started popping up about his record on key issues and his legal resume. He has been described by SCOTUS blog as a “modest, neutral judge.” That doesn’t sound terrible, right?

SIGN THE PETITION: Do Not Allow a Vote on Merrick Garland

For those that care deeply about abortion, both those who are pro-choice and those who are pro-life, this isn’t reassuring.

Pro-lifers want a judge that isn’t a liberal; pro-choice judicial activist who supports Roe v. Wade, which many legal experts say is an unconstitutional decision. For the abortion industry, it is crucial that the next appointee will uphold all the abortion rights decisions of the Supreme Court. So either way, having a judicial appointment with no abortion rulings in the past to reveal his leanings is disconcerting.

Or is it?

Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion chain, has no hesitations with Garland. In fact, she stated that “Judge Garland is an intelligent, highly accomplished judge who has secured bipartisan support in his previous appointments…It is time for the Senate to do their job and give Judge Garland a fair hearing and up or down vote.”

NARAL had a similar statement and urged the Senate to hold hearings and a vote.

Even though Garland has said nothing publicly about abortion nor has had any abortion rulings in his past, the abortion groups are confident that he will uphold Roe v. Wade and protect their own industry.

Between Planned Parenthood and NARAL pushing this appointee, there is reason enough for pro-lifers to oppose the nomination of Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Add in the fact that Obama, the most pro-abortion president in the nation’s history, nominated Garland, and there is no way that pro-lifers can support him.

The Supreme Court has become one of the most important pieces of the chessboard of American politics. Picking a president that will nominate a justice consistent with certain ideologies is one the most important criteria that voters look at – or they should be considering at the very least. A Supreme Court Justice will outlast presidential terms for decades and their decisions will affect the culture and policies of the country longer than any other leader.

For voters who cast their ballot for Obama, and for Planned Parenthood, who threw their substantial support behind him, they expect a Supreme Court pick that is just as liberal as he is.

Even though Merrick Garland’s position on abortion is not known publicly, there is no doubt that he holds views close to those of Obama and Richards. The stakes are too high to gamble that he doesn’t.