Chavez to Withdraw as Labor Nominee, AP Reports By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Labor Secretary-designee Linda Chavez plans to withdraw as a nominee for Labor secretary Tuesday, three Republican officials said.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Chavez intended to say she had become a distraction to Bush because of questions about an illegal immigrant who stayed in her house in the early 1990s. The officials advise both Bush and Chavez and were involved in deliberations over Bush's most controversial Cabinet pick.

Meeting behind closed doors and refusing to discuss her situation, even after Chavez announced a 4 p.m. EST news conference, officials urged the conservative commentator to withdraw. Officials said she was reluctant to do so, even making plans for a news conference featuring immigrants who she had helped establish themselves in the United States.

One of the sources said there would be no discussion at the news conference of a possible replacement for Mrs. Chavez.

Other contenders whose names surfaced in the days leading to Mrs. Chavez selection included former Rep. James Talent, who gave up his House seat last fall to make an unsuccessful run for governor of Missouri; and Rich Bond, a former RNC chairman who served in the administration of Bush's father, former President George Bush.

-- AP wire (AP@wire.com), January 09, 2001

Answers

Good. The punishment for her crime is fines and up to 5 years in prison. When will she pay the fines? Has she been arrested yet?

-- (lock.the@traitor.up), January 09, 2001.

Ha, one down, who's next? Ashcroft we're gonna getcha, fascist lackey.

-- (LeonTrotsky@WWW.wobblies), January 09, 2001.

We're just getting warmed up! I think we need a Kenneth Starr on the side of the Democratic Party.

The next 4 years are going to be the longest and most painful 4 years the Shrub has ever experienced. He is going to regret the day he ever told his Daddy yes, he would run for president.

-- The bleeding heart liberals (revenge@is.sweet), January 09, 2001.

Liberal Losers,

On January 20th, who will be in the White House? Al Gore?

Who will control the U.S. House of Representatives? The Democrats?

Who will control the U.S. Senate via the tiebraking vote of the Vice President? The Democrats?

Just face it. You lost. Your highlights have been reduced to a Bush cabinent nominee withdrawing from being considered for the position.

Guess what? It won't be Al Gore picking the next nominee.

Your best bet is to hope that Stevens and Ginsburg don't expire or retire in the next four years.

Does an America with no abortions give you the willies?

Good.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), January 09, 2001.

Yeah, but...

Who controls the media?

Remember???

BWAAAA HAAAA HAAAA HAAAA!!!!

-- :-) (this is gonna @ be. good!), January 10, 2001.

Does an America with no abortions give you the willies?

Ya, so does Ashcroft's views.

John Ashcroft's Extremism Against Abortion Rights and Common Birth Control Methods

Senator John Ashcroft, President-elect George W. Bush's nominee for Attorney General of the United States, is well known as a staunch opponent of women's reproductive freedom. What is less well known is that he is so extreme in his views that he supports enacting a federal law and amending the Constitution to ban abortions even when a woman has been raped or is the victim of incest. And he has advocated proposals in Congress that were so sweeping that they could have been invoked to use the government's power to ban common forms of contraception, including the pill and IUDs, a little-publicized goal of some anti-choice organizations.

There is no question that Americans differ on the difficult issue of abortion. But Mr. Ashcroft's positions on abortion and the right of women to control their own bodies are so far removed from those of most Americans as to raise significant doubts about his fitness to serve as the nation's chief legal officer, a person who would be responsible for enforcing federal laws and protecting individual rights. Indeed, this is one of many reasons why John Ashcroft should not be confirmed as United States Attorney General.

Ashcroft's extremism is evident in his support for a "Human Life Amendment" to the United States Constitution, and for the enactment of a similar provision into federal law. In 1998, during his term as a United States Senator, John Ashcroft, along with only Senators Jesse Helms and Bob Smith, was an original sponsor of a proposed amendment to the Constitution (S.J. Res. 49), and a proposed federal statute (S. 2135, the "Human Life Act"), that would have prohibited all abortions except those medical procedures "required to prevent the death of either the pregnant woman or her unborn offspring, as long as [the law authorizing such procedures] requires every reasonable effort be made to preserve the lives of both of them." The proposed amendment and statute contained no exception for victims of rape or incest, nor did they contain any exception for abortions necessary to prevent injury, including serious or permanent injury, to the woman's health.

In seeking to ban abortions without any exception for victims of rape or incest, Senator Ashcroft is well out of step with the American public. According to a Gallup Poll taken in March-April 2000, 78% of respondents stated that abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest. See www.gallup.com (visited Dec. 27, 2000).

But Ashcroft's proposals threatened even more extreme results. The sweeping language of the proposed "Human Life Amendment" and "Human Life Act" defined human life as beginning at "fertilization," and could therefore have been invoked to ban some of the most widely accepted and dependable forms of contraception, such as the pill and IUDs, which may sometimes work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the uterus. In fact, banning these methods of contraception is a goal of such extreme anti- choice organizations as the American Life League, which opposes all abortions, without exception. See www.all.org. The American Life League considers common forms of contraception, specifically including the pill and IUDs, to be "abortifacient in action [that] kill already existing human beings," and opposes "these devices." See www.all.org (visited Dec. 27, 2000). The President of the American Life League has stated that the pill, the IUD, Norplant and Depo- Provera "can and do kill, and are therefore not contraceptives -- we are talking about abortion." See "Pill Bill: Birth control is not healthcare," (at www.all.org, visited Dec. 27, 2000).

John Ashcroft agrees that common forms of contraception that work by preventing implantation should be considered "abortifacients," and he has taken other steps beyond the legislative proposals discussed above to deny women access to them. In 1998, Ashcroft was one of just eight Senators, including Jesse Helms and Bob Smith, who signed a letter in opposition to pending legislation to require federal employee health insurance plans to cover the cost of prescription contraceptives. In their letter, Senator Ashcroft and his handful of colleagues stated: "we are concerned with what appears to be a loophole in the legislation regarding contraceptives that upon failing to prevent fertilization, act de facto as abortifacients. Therefore, we believe this amendment is a precedent setting attempt to mandate coverage of other abortifacients." They urged that the provision requiring coverage of contraceptives be dropped. See Letter to Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell from Senators Brownback, Nickles, Ashcroft, Coats, Helms, Enzi, Bob Smith, and Hutchinson (Sept. 4, 1998).

The legislation that Ashcroft opposed was endorsed by leading medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. In a letter supporting the proposal, the medical groups stated that "[a]ccess to reliable contraception should be a part of even the most basic health care plans." Congress ultimately enacted this proposal.

Millions of American women use contraceptives, including the contraceptives that Senator Ashcroft's proposals would ban. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, 90% of American women between the ages of 15-44 who are fertile and sexually active and who do not want to become pregnant -- some 39 million women -- use some form of contraception. See www.agi-usa.org (visited Dec. 28, 2000). Of the millions of women practicing contraception, approximately 27% use the pill (which is also the most common contraceptive used by women in their twenties), and a total of approximately 5% use IUDs or injectable or implanted forms of contraception. There can be no real question that millions of American women (and their families) would object to, and be seriously harmed by, a ban on these contraceptives.

Lest there be any doubt about his desire to ban virtually all abortions, in May 1998, John Ashcroft submitted a written statement to Human Events: The National Conservative Weekly reconfirming his views. Aschcroft sent the document to correct statements in a form letter sent by his Senate office to his constituents saying that he believed in a woman's right to choose to have an abortion in cases of rape or incest. In his statement to Human Events, Ashcroft repudiated the suggestion that he supported abortion in cases of rape or incest and detailed his lengthy public record in opposition to abortion. He also summed up his own position as follows: "[I]f I had the opportunity to pass but a single law, I would fully recognize the constitutional right to life of every unborn child, and ban every abortion except for those medically necessary to save the life of the mother." Human Events, at 7 (May 29, 1998) (emphasis added).

In May 1999, the same month in which Senator Ashcroft accepted an honorary degree from Bob Jones University, he was also honored by the American Life League.

As the country's chief legal officer and lawyer for the President, the Attorney General has enormous power and influence over the existence and protection of women's reproductive freedom. For example, the Attorney General is responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act and for seeing to it that this important law fulfills its intended purpose of helping ensure that women are free to exercise their right to make their own reproductive decisions. The Attorney General's responsibilities also include reviewing and helping to select potential nominees for the federal bench. This includes lower court judges and Supreme Court Justices who may rule on issues pertaining to reproductive freedom and, indeed, whether Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land. The screening and selection process carried out in the Department of Justice helps determine whether the men and women who come before the Senate for confirmation to the third branch of government are fair- minded individuals committed to the fundamental American principle of equal justice for all, or are ideologues chosen to advance a specific social and legal agenda.

The Attorney General also reviews proposed legislation, and renders advice as to whether particular proposals violate the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, which has repeatedly held that women have the constitutional right to choose abortion and that this right cannot be unreasonably burdened. And, through the Office of the Solicitor General, the Attorney General represents the United States before the Supreme Court, where he or she is in a position to advocate on behalf of or in opposition to the right of women to reproductive freedom and choice.

John Ashcroft's positions on these issues are too extreme for him to be given this critical power and influence over the lives of American women and their families.

-- (he's@n.abortion), January 10, 2001.

The same right-to-privacy on which Roe v. Wade rests is the same right-to-privacy on which the SCOTUS based the right of access to contraception.

Does an America without contraception give you the willies?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 10, 2001.

Does an America without contraception give you the willies?

Oh hell, America w/contraception gives me the damn willies, seeing as though my sons S/O just informed me she is pregnant AGAIN.....

I'm only 38 %$#*() years old and gonna be a gramma 2x.

Yes I'm pissed, I can see one mistake, but 2? Oh HELLLLLL no.

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 10, 2001.

I can relate, Sumer. My little brother's the same way. He got married the first time when his son was about ten months old. He's about to be married for the 2nd time this month. The wedding was originally supposed to be in August. He denied that the change was for anything other than romantic reasons, and claimed that he and his fiance are "right with the Lord", but last weekend finally admitted that his bride is three months pregnant.

Well, at least he's marrying her.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 10, 2001.

I just dont get it. I do consider myself to be mildly conservative. My son came to my home last weekend, he stated he has left her and shall never go back. Although I 'tried' to understand his reasoning and attempted to let him vent, I ended up telling him thats whatcha get when you play house.

This woman is 26 years old, my son just turned 20. He moved in with her when he was only 17.!!!! At that time, his dad had custody of him and wished to pursue the staturatory (sp) rape avenue. I told him not to, that perhaps this would only bring it closer together.

I can understand ONE mistake. what breaks my heart is the fact that my grandson will suffer. He will be the one to do w/out. They cant afford the child they have now. He does not wish to be married and as conservative as I'd like to think of myself, I'm somewhat glad he wont marry her. They both knew better.

Tarz, I gave till I could no longer give, I've went w/out to help them. At this point, I WASH MY HANDS. NO MORE period. If my grandboy needs clothing or food, I will take him to get the needed items, but I'll be damned IF I will go w/out again to 'help'.

Sorry, but I am sooooo pissed I could spit mario brothers fireballs right bout now.

Always drama,

sumer

-- sumer (shh@aol.con), January 10, 2001.

Forgive me for asking Sumer, but is this the son who is sick? If so, is your first grandbaby healthy?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 10, 2001.

Oh thats okay, no it is not the one who is ill, it is my middle son.

Son who is ill is now living in Florida, Reddington Shores area and doing quite well. He is in town now for further testing.

Hey, perhaps maybe that is what the middle one is thinking, since the older cant/wont have kids, he'll make up for it ? N O T !!!!!! '-)

-- SUMER (shh@aol.con), January 10, 2001.

That's what I'm saying to my little brother. Somebody's got to pass along our family genes, right? ;-)

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), January 10, 2001.