From The New York Times, January 31, 2001:
A Doctor's Fear
To the Editor:
As a doctor who has been on the assassination hit lists of anti-abortion fanatics for many years, I am alarmed at the prospect of having John Ashcroft as attorney general (news article, Jan. 30).
I cannot imagine an otherwise formally qualified person who would be a greater danger to me, to my freedom, to the welfare of my patients and to the freedom of women to make basic personal choices in their lives.
I do not believe Mr. Ashcroft's statements that he accepts Roe v. Wade as "settled law," or that he would respect this constitutional right. I do not believe that he will enforce the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, nor do I believe that he will prosecute anti-abortion violence under any other law. His nomination is an affront to the public trust.
WARREN M. HERN, M.D.
Boulder, Colo., Jan. 30, 2001
The writer is director of the Boulder Abortion Clinic
The following response appeared in The New York Times, February 2,
2001:
To Uphold The Law
To the Editor:
Dr. Warren M. Hern, the director of the Boulder Abortion Clinic, asserts that John Ashcroft as attorney general would be a "danger" to him (letter, Jan. 31). Dr. Hern writes that
Mr. Ashcroft's nomination is "an affront to the public trust."
Obviously, Dr. Hern is a divider, not a uniter. But John Ashcroft will uphold the law of the land. As a former senator, he understands that Congress makes laws and the attorney general enforces them. There is no ambiguity here with respect to the roles of the different branches of the federal government.
Dr. Hern should be more careful with his rhetoric. If he disagrees with the Bush administration and Republicans about our commitment to protect the sanctity of human life, that
argument should be made on the merits, not at the expense of another man's good name.
(Rep.) J.C. WATTS Jr.
Chmn., House Republican Conference
Washington, Jan. 31, 2001