Sparks Fly in NorCo Judicial Race Over Women's Rights to Choose

There is one opening on Northampton County's bench this election cycle. Brian Panella secured the Democratic nomination while Nancy Aaroe is the choice of Republicans. Up until now, the sole issue has been experience. Aaroe has more of that than Brian. A lot more. But Brian has more judicial experience since he's served as a Master in the ugliest kind of cases in existence - custody disputes. They should be issued whistles instead of gavels. 

Over the weekend, Panella made this point on Facebook. He noted his exposure to these warring factions, where he was required to control unhappy parents, who often act very much like the children over whom they seek parental rights. He declared that because of this, he "is the most experienced candidate. Period."  And then he adds this zinger: "Our conservative opponent tries to hide from the fact that she poses a direct threat to a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions."

What ensued was a fascinating and frank dialogue between these two:

Nancy Aaroe: "Which is it Brian? Apparently to you, I’m a Liberal pushing pro-choice Baratta when you’re speaking to Republicans, but a conservative threat to women’s rights when you’re trying to scare Democrats and Women? Stop pushing divisive partisan narratives you don’t even believe in and which are not even relevant to this race." She then adds the script of a text message sent by the Panella campaign to Republicans, calling her a "Democrat in Republican clothing." 

Brian Panella: "You have publicly stated that you are a “conservative and a constitutionalist”, but you have donated money to many liberals including an ultra liberal DA candidate with no police endorsements. So Nancy, you tell us which one it is, are you Pro-life or Pro-choice?"

Nancy Aaroe: "I will be following the LAW, and the Judicial CODE OF ETHICS, which expressly states that candidates cannot “in connection with cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office” (Canon4(a)(12)) ; and Rule 4.2(1) that a candidate must “act at all times in a manner consistent with the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary”.

"Perhaps you should spend more time studying both, instead of attempting to inappropriately politicize a judicial race. Maybe with some time and experience as an attorney, you can familiarize yourself with the appropriate ethics of being a judge.

That's the end of this unusual exchange between these two. But one person thinks that voters have the right to know where judicial candidates stand on different issues. 

Jason Bryan Boulette: " Hi Nancy: federal courts have held that there is a difference between making a commitment or pledge to ruling in a certain way on a case likely to come before a judge and a judicial candidate stating his or her personal beliefs. And in 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Republican Party of MN v. White that the First Amendment prohibits the government from preventing judicial candidates from stating their opinions on disputed political or legal issues. So I'm not sure why you're trying to hide behind a false interpretation of the Code of Ethics. The fact is that judges' views on issues matter. In Nebraska, a woman was just sentenced to two years in prison for helping her daughter obtain abortion medication. In Texas, a federal judge ruled that drag shows are offensive and lewd and not subject to the protection of the First Amendment. If you hold views like that, do you think the voters have no right to know where you stand? Your claim that judicial races are being politicized is funny -- sure, it would be nice to take politics out of judging, but in the Commonwealth, the people elect judges and the judges run political campaigns, so as long as that's the case, we have a right to know your beliefs and stances."

Since this exchange, the Aaroe campaign has fired off a news release claiming that Panella has been reported to  the Judicial Conduct Board and that he is a "flagrant" liar . She claims he crossed the line by discussing women's rights and that he's "purposefully attempting to scare women voters by invoking the issue of women’s reproductive health, which is not remotely applicable to our present judicial race."

Then , right after stating that candidates are barred from discussing this kind of issue, she does it herself. 

"LET ME MAKE MY STANCE ON THIS TOPIC VERY CLEAR: Nothing in my 32 year legal career would suggest that I would do anything to stand in the way of women’s health issues. I plan to follow the LAW - The PA Constitution has protections in place for elective abortion access through 24 weeks (and medically necessary abortion thereafter), this has been in our State Constitution for over 30 years. Abortion access is NOT at risk in our County or in the State of PA, and to say that ANY County Judicial Candidate is a “direct threat” to abortion access is factually incorrect and purposefully misleading. As a judicial candidate charged with reading and ruling on the law, there is nothing more that is appropriate to say on this, and Panella should be mindful of that. Judge candidates are not allowed to either voice their positions on these issues, nor campaign on them."

Methinks she does protest a bit too much.