Backwards thinking

Editor,

I read that U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer will vote against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts unless he supports rights that she considers essential!

Boxer, then, says that she needs to know where he will stand, and she needs to know if he will fight to protect and defend the rights and freedoms of the American people.

Well, is Boxer defending a woman's right to kill her pre-born baby inside her womb without considering the pre-born baby's rights? Does Boxer believe that a pre-born baby is not a human being?

Boxer should know that it is proven scientifically, biologically, and medically that human life begins at conception.

Now, is Boxer basing her total belief on the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous and fallible 1973 "Roe v. Wade" decision that indirectly implies that a pre-born baby is to be considered personal property of a women to choose to kill or allowed to live?

Boxer should know that the United State Supreme Court is not infallible. In 1857, the Dred Scott decision, another nine men dressed in black robes ruled that black people were not to be considered persons but as personal property of the slave owners to be used or discarded at their discretion.

Lastly, if the same system we have today to choose nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court with senators like Boxer and her kind existed in the 19th century the so-called, sacred rights of the slave owners to keep the black people in chains would be still the law of the land.

Ross Foti

Belmont