The majority of high profile pro-life organizations are voicing approval for John G. Roberts and are encouraging their followers to support the nomination. However, none appear willing to express complete confidence in Roberts' position on Roe v. Wade.
Are they simply afraid to put themselves out on a limb? Or, are they making a conscious effort to avoid statements that could provide their opponents with potentially useful ammunition?
Operation Rescue
"We appreciate President Bush being a man of his word by appointing a judge that will respect the Right to Life acknowledged by our nation's founding documents," said Newman. "We pray that Roberts will be swiftly confirmed."
"Our nation has suffered enough under decades of liberal activist judges legislating from the bench," said OR spokesperson Cheryl Sullenger. "After 45 million dead children, we are guardedly optimistic that the confirmation of Judge Roberts will be a step toward restoring protections for the pre-born that were stolen from them in 1973."
Operation Rescue - Boston
At OR: Boston we are cautiously optimistic about John Roberts. A very reliable source of ours reports that John Roberts is a very serious Catholic. Laura Ingraham, who was also a Supreme Court clerk for Clarence Thomas, is adamant that he is a superlative appointment, and definitely not a David Souter -- apparently knowing more than it would be prudent to tell.
Frank Pavone - Priests for Life
"I am thrilled that the President has kept his promise by selecting a nominee who understands the importance of strictly adhering to the Constitution," Pavone said. "The President's selection of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. shows that he has a fundamental understanding of the types of judges that we need on the Supreme Court, judges who understand the difference between applying law and rewriting law.
Senate Democrats, especially those seeking reelection next year, should know that we will be watching them carefully. If they again attempt to attack a nominee's faith or pro-life convictions, their constituents will know about it and they will be held accountable.
Donald E. Wildmon - American Family Association
The President promised to nominate an individual to the Supreme Court who will interpret, not rewrite, the Constitution. He kept his word by nominating John Roberts. Now he needs your encouragement.
Please email the President to let him know that you appreciate him keeping his campaign promise and encourage him to stay the course.
Tony Perkins - Family Research Council
President Bush has chosen an exceptionally well-qualified and impartial nominee for the Supreme Court. Judge Roberts is widely respected for his fair judgment, intellect and integrity, all things qualifying him to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice. I believe that Judge Roberts will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.
James Dobson's Focus on Family offers a handy letter to the editor "wizard":
But liberal pressure groups are already mobilizing to upend Roberts' nomination, hoping to convince Americans he is not suitable to serve. You can play a key role in thwarting their plans -- by sending a letter to the editor of your local newspaper stressing Roberts' solid qualifications and character.
We've made it easy for you to put one together by gathering a series of points you can use to make a compelling argument in favor of Judge Roberts receiving a fair Senate confirmation hearing and an up-or-down vote on his nomination. And please keep this in mind: It is not unethical or "plagiarism" for you to assemble and submit a letter using this tool. We offer this information to help you put into words your thoughts on this important subject; editors serve the same function at newspapers, helping reporters organize and relate their thoughts in the most effective manner possible.
The Republican National Coalition for Life takes a particularly cautious position:
Judge Roberts is an extremely attractive nominee with an impressive record. He will very likely turn out to be a credit to President Bush and a staunch adherent to Constitutional principles. He may provide to the court the conviction that the right to life is the first right without which we have no other. We don't know. We are not sure. Perhaps we would do well to exercise caution while remaining optimistic. After all, Roberts could turn out to be another O'Connor, or Souter, or Kennedy. If that happens, which we sincerely hope it won't, it would be most uncomfortable to have to point the finger of blame at ourselves.