Via Southern Appeal and from a 1993 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas given by Harriet Miers.
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," Miers said.
Those seeking to resolve such disputes would do well to remember that "we gave up" a long time ago on "legislating religion or morality," she said. And "when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act."
With Judge Roberts nomination as days went on the more I heard the better I felt about his nomination. The opposite seems to be true for the nomination of Harriet Miers. In a perfect world we would not be concerned about any personal philosophy that a nominee held since they would only be judging on what the law actually says in accordance with its original intent. There has always been some extent of judicial activism most notably the Dred Scott decision and it has been on the upswing in the last fifty years. Unfortunately this is why we now need nominees with some track record with regards to constitutional law so that we are better able to determine their judicial philosophy. It is too bad that this is now necessary, but necessary it is.