Law enforcement officers in Phoenix, Arizona used tear gas to break up a sizable group of protesters outside the state’s Senate building following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the landmark abortion ruling Roe v. Wade. “Protesters threatened to break the AZ Senate entryway glass,” Republican Arizona State Senator Wendy Rogers tweeted, as members were in the middle of voting on a series of bills.
The situation escalated into a “hostage” situation as lawmakers were instructed not to exit the building, Republican Arizona State Senator Kelly Townsend said.
The Republican Caucus of the State Senate later called the protest an attempted “insurrection.”
“We are currently there being held hostage inside the Senate building due to members of the public trying to breach our security,” Townsend tweeted Friday night. “We smell tear gas and the children of one of the members are in the office sobbing with fear.”
“I expect a J24 committee to be created immediately,” she added, referencing the January 6 committee that is investigating the insurrection of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021.
According to the lawmakers, law enforcement officers then deployed tear gas to disperse the crowds and regain control of the building.
“Crowd was dispersed with tear gas.” Rogers added, noting the protests were still continuing and the situation remained “very dangerous.”
Today is a — it’s not hyperbole to suggest a very solemn moment. Today, the Supreme Court of the United States expressly took away a constitutional right from the American people that it had already recognized.
(Can you tell me where to find the word “abortion” in the Constitution, Joe? Because it’s very hard to take away something that doesn’t exist, and nothing in the Constitution even remotely suggests the existence of the “right” which you claim was “already recognized.”)
They didn’t limit it. They simply took it away. That’s never been done to a right so important to so many Americans.
(To whom is this “right so important”? To the abortion clinic operators who make millions of dollars of campaign contributions to Democrats every campaign cycle.)
But they did it. And it’s a sad day for the Court and for the country.
Fifty years ago, Roe v. Wade was decided and has been the law of the land since then.
(Yes, and Plessy v. Ferguson, decided in 1896, was “the law of the land” for the next 58 years. But let’s not bring up Joe’s old Klan buddy Bob Byrd just to score a few cheap political points. Instead, let’s ask why Joe Biden thinks this is such “a sad day,” or how about we ask him about his bastard grandchild Hunter spawned with that Arkansas stripper? But nobody in the press corps every asks Joe any of the important questions, so never mind, eh?)
This landmark case protected a woman’s right to choose, her right to make intensely personal decisions with her doctor, free from the inter- — from interference of politics.
It reaffirmed basic principles of equality — that women have the power to control their own destiny. And it reinforced the fundamental right of privacy — the right of each of us to choose how to live our lives.
Now, with Roe gone, let’s be very clear: The health and life of women in this nation are now at risk.
(There’s so much to unpack here, and I don’t want to get too bogged down, but am I the only one mystified as to what “basic principles of equality” the Roe decision allegedly “reaffirmed”? Because that 1973 decision voided state laws against abortion that had existed before some of the Justices on that court were even born. Abortion has been regarded as a crime in Anglo-American common law dating back centuries. But we are expected to believe these ancient laws, deeply rooted in our nation’s customs and culture, violated some “principle” to which Biden committed. The idea that discouraging abortion is somehow a threat to “the health and life of women” is another claim about which Biden will never be asked any serious questions by the press corps that politely ignores the bastard grandchild spawned by the president’s dopehead son.)
As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as Vice President and now as President of the United States, I’ve studied this case carefully. I’ve overseen more Supreme Court confirmations than anyone today, where this case was always discussed.
(Joe reminds us that he was the head clown in charge of the circus when the Judiciary Committee staged its “high-tech lynching” of Clarence Thomas.)
I believe Roe v. Wade was the correct decision as a matter of constitutional law, an application of the fundamental right to privacy and liberty in matters of family and personal autonomy.
It was a decision on a complex matter that drew a careful balance between a woman’s right to choose earlier in her pregnancy and the state’s ability to regulate later in her pregnancy. A decision with broad national consensus that most Americans of faiths and backgrounds found acceptable and that had been the law of the land for most of the lifetime of Americans today.
(There was a “broad national consensus” in support of Plessy v. Ferguson, but I hate to keep reminding you about Biden’s old segregationist buddy Bob Byrd.)
And it was a constitutional principle upheld by justices appointed by Democrat and Republican Presidents alike.
Roe v. Wade was a 7 to 2 decision written by a justice appointed by a Republican President, Richard Nixon. In the five decades that followed Roe v. Wade, justices appointed by Republican Presidents — from Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, George W. [H.W.] Bush — were among the justices who voted to uphold the principles set forth in Roe v. Wade.
It was three justices named by one President — Donald Trump — who were the core of today’s decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country.
(An important reason why 74 million of us voted for Trump. But again, the problem is that Biden speaks of “constitutional principle” and “a fundamental right” when no such thing is to be found in the actual Constitution and when, as I say, abortion had previously been outlawed everywhere the English common law prevailed.)
Make no mistake: This decision is the culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law. It’s a realization of an extreme ideology and a tragic error by the Supreme Court, in my view.
The Court has done what it has never done before: expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans that had already been recognized.
The Court’s decision to do so will have real and immediate consequences. State laws banning abortion are automatically taking effect today, jeopardizing the health of millions of women, some without exceptions.
So extreme that women could be punished for protecting their health.
So extreme that women and girls who are forced to bear their rapist’s child — of the child of consequence.
It’s a — it just — it just stuns me.
(Joe is easily stunned these days. He is “stunned,” for example, when piling on trillions of “stimulus” spending leads to inflation, and he’s “stunned” when Vladimir Putin decides to take advantage of Joe’s weakness by invading Ukraine. When you’re a brain-addled 78-year-old, lots of things “stun” you, even things that are entirely predictable.)
So extreme that doctors will be criminalized for fulfilling their duty to care.
Imagine having — a young woman having to ch- — carry the child of incest — as a consequence of incest. No option.
Too often the case that poor women are going to be hit the hardest. It’s cruel.
In fact, the Court laid out state laws criminalizing abortion that go back to the 1800s as rationale — the Court literally taking America back 150 years.
(Let’s party like it’s 1872!)
This a sad day for the country, in my view, but it doesn’t mean the fight is over.
Let me be very clear and unambiguous: The only way we can secure a woman’s right to choose and the balance that existed is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade as federal law.
No executive action from the President can do that. And if Congress, as it appears, lacks the vote — votes to do that now, voters need to make their voices heard.
This fall, we must elect more senators and representatives who will codify a woman’s right to choose into federal law once again, elect more state leaders to protect this right at the local level.
(“It’s a sad day! Fundamental rights! I’m just a brain-damaged imbecile reading what’s on the teleprompter! Elect more Democrats!”)
We need to restore the protections of Roe as law of the land. We need to elect officials who will do that. This fall, Roe is on the ballot. Personal freedoms are on the ballot. The right to privacy, liberty, equality, they’re all on the ballot.
Until then, I will do all in my power to protect a woman’s right in states where they will face the consequences of today’s decision.
While the Court’s decision casts a dark shadow over a large swath of the land, many states in this country still recognize a woman’s right to choose.
(Yes, a “dark shadow” — infanticide will be illegal again! Democrats hate babies! Vote for us so we can keep killing babies!)
So if a woman lives in a state that restricts abortion, the Supreme Court’s decision does not prevent her from traveling from her home state to the state that allows it. It does not prevent a doctor in that state — in that state from treating her.
As the Attorney General has made clear, women must remain free to travel safely to another state to seek the care they need. And my administration will defend that bedrock right.
If any state or local official, high or low, tries to interfere with a woman’s ex- — exercising her basic right to travel, I will do everything in my power to fight that deeply un-American attack.
(It’s “deeply un-American” to stop Democrats from killing babies.)
My administration will also protect a woman’s access to medications that are approved by the Food and Drug Administration — the FDA — like contraception, which is essential for preventative healthcare; mifepristone, which the FDA approved 20 years ago to safely end early pregnancies and is commonly used to treat miscarriages.
Some states are saying that they’ll try to ban or severely restrict access to these medications.
But extremist governors and state legislators who are looking to block the mail or search a person’s medicine cabinet or control a woman’s actions by tracking data on her apps she uses are wrong and extreme and out of touch with the majority of Americans.
(It’s “wrong and extreme” to disagree with Joe.)
The American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists wrote to me and Vice President Harris stressing that these laws are not based on — are not based on evidence and asking us to act to protect access to care. They say by limiting access to these medicines, maternal mortality will climb in America. That’s what they say.
Today, I’m directing the Department of Health and Human Services to take steps to ensure that these critical medications are available to the fullest extent possible and that politicians cannot interfere in the decisions that should be made between a woman and her doctor. And my administration will remain vigilant as the implications of this decision play out.
I’ve warned about how this decision risks the broader right to privacy for everyone. That’s because Roe recognized the fundamental right to privacy that has served as the basis for so many more rights that we have come to take — we’ve come to take for granted that are ingrained in the fabric of this country: the right to make the best decisions for your health; the right to use birth control — a married couple — in the privacy of their bedroom, for God’s sake; the right to marry the person you love.
Now, Justice Thomas said as much today. He explicitly called to reconsider the right of marriage equality, the right of couples to make their choices on contraception. This is an extreme and dangerous path the Court is now taking us on. Let me close with two points.
First, I call on everyone, no matter how deeply they care about this decision, to keep all protests peaceful. Peaceful, peaceful, peaceful. No intimidation. Violence is never acceptable. Threats and intimidation are not speech. We must stand against violence in any form regardless of your rationale. Second, I know so many of us are frustrated and disillusioned that the Court has taken something away that’s so fundamental. I know so many women are now going to face incredibly difficult situations. I hear you. I support you. I stand with you.
(Here’s a third point, Joe: Your approval ratings suck, and if you think your enthusiasm for killing babies is going to fix that problem, you’ve probably got another think coming.)
The consequences and the consensus of the American people — core principles of equality, liberty, dignity, and the stability of the rule of law — demand that Roe should not have been overturned.
With this decision, the conservative majority of the Supreme Court shows how extreme it is, how far removed they are from the majority of this country. They have made the United States an outlier among developed nations in the world. But this decision must not be the final word.
My administration will use all of its appropriate lawful powers. But Congress must act. And with your vote, you can act. You can have the final word. This is not over.
Except, yeah, it probably is over — everything but the riots, vandalism and arson promised by the true extremists of “Jane’s Revenge.” What I expect to happen is that Democrats are going to make abortion the centerpiece of their campaign, until they realize most people don’t really cares that much about this “fundamental right” when they’re paying over $5 for a gallon of gas while worried about getting carjacked by violent criminals turned loose by liberal district attorneys.
UPDATE: As predicted, they’re completely unhinged:
Today, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court has achieved the GOP’s dark and extreme goal of ripping away women’s right to make their own reproductive health decisions.
In Congress, Republicans are plotting a nationwide abortion ban. In the states, they want to arrest doctors offering reproductive care & women for terminating a pregnancy. GOP extremists are threatening to criminalize contraception, in-vitro fertilization & post-miscarriage care.
Isn’t it wonderful how Democrats use the euphemism “reproductive health” as a synonym for killing babies? From the Democratic point of view, killing babies is the most important thing in the world — infanticide is totally awesome! — and they become distraught when anyone suggests that killing babies is actually a bad thing.
Senate Democrats failed to advance a bill to codify Roe v. Wade and create a national right to abortion on Wednesday.
The procedural vote to invoke cloture and advance the Women’s Health Protection Act failed in a 49-to-51 vote. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer chose to hold the vote despite the near certainty that Democrats would fail to meet the 60-vote threshold needed to break a Republican filibuster and advance the measure.
The largely symbolic vote came after a leaked majority draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization revealed that the Supreme Court could be poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, returning the question of abortion to the states.
This is a newborn baby. 49 Democrat senators just voted that it should be lawful to kill it the moment before this while it was still inside its mother. pic.twitter.com/n43O1qXoxE
One point I’ve not seen raised as we move toward a possible abortion of Roe/Casey is this pertains to the “If you don’t have a uterus, you cannot speak” argument. Whether one can speak has nothing to do with whether the plumbing is “indoor” or “outdoor”, because this is fundamentally a family, not an individual argument.
This is where the Left (credit where due) has expertly played the individual liberty card as a trump against conservatives. Because we do care about individual liberty. I, for one, am not here to boss anyone around. Bossing people around triggers that “Newton’s 3rd Law of Humans” rebellion. Perhaps you’ve noticed.
But.
Let me address my “team” directly here: if she’s not your wife, you’ve no business trading protein with her. And if God has joined you, let no man (to include you behaving like a boy) put that divine appointment asunder.
— I Came?I Saw?I Got Over Macho Grande (@smitty_one_each) April 23, 2022
Once a man is married (take your time, this is not a decision to be taken lightly), he needs to stay that way. We all look the same in the dark, and everyone’s feet stink. Don’t let the testosterone lead you to cheapen the sacrament. We can continue to prize our individual liberty as a political matter (I certainly do) but your spiritual growth as a man involves treating your marriage as a spiritual castle, just as your home is your physical castle.
Yet, political Libertarianism is orthogonal to your spiritual oath to the marriage and the ensuing family.
Thus, we are right, correct, and proper when we stomp this “no uterus, no voice” argument into the mud. It is a foul deceit intended to (and quite successful at) cratering our society and reducing us to thralls of a Socialist state controlled by globalists.
Therefore, it is my hope that the Pro Life movement morphs into a Pro Family movement, and we continue to reject the parade of follies that have plagued us since the Summer of Love.
Again, I’m not here to boss anyone around. I understand that there are plenty of people for whom “Form Follows Function” is too complex a concept to grasp, like the truth that a dog has four legs, no matter how we label the tail. Lord, have mercy.
But for those of us men who are not confused about manhood, it is time to step up to the plate, love our families as the Lord has loved us, and rebuild a collapsed culture.
Honestly, this was a rabbit hole I never intended to go down. Like, why should I spend more than an hour scrolling through Google search results to try to assemble a biographical sketch of an obscure journalist? But today I glanced at Memeorandum and spotted this headline:
My first thought was, “What? Somebody’s trying to out-do Amanda Duarte in the ‘Worst Hot Take’ competition?” You see this is Charlie Warzel’s spin on the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that’s caused such an uproar this week that Justice Samuel Alito had to cancel a scheduled appearance at a judicial conference because of death threats.
The obtuseness of Warzel’s spin, we’ll get to in a minute, but first, exactly who is this guy? He is from the suburbs of Philadelphia. In fact, I think Warzel and Jack Posobiec grew up in the same town in Montgomery County, which is kind of weird if you think about it. Like, what are the odds that two people so diametrically opposed would both be from the same suburb of Philly? At any rate, while Posobiec was attending a Catholic school, Warzel attended an elite prep school founded by Quakers. Annual tuition at The Shipley School in Bryn Mawr is about $43,000, which strikes me as lunacy. Warzel’s parents paid $160,000+ just for his high school education? My efforts to locate the source of the Warzel family fortune failed, so I don’t know if one Charlie’s ancestors was an Astor, a Fisk or some other 19th-century robber baron, but you’ve got to figure his folks must be loaded to send their kid to such a posh prep school, and his choice of college also screams “Trust Fund Baby.”
Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., is one of those pricey little sub-Ivy liberal arts schools where rich parents send their kids whose SATs weren’t quite good enough for Princeton or Dartmouth. Admission is somewhat selective (18% of applicants are admitted), but only the scions of wealthy families would bother applying, because the annual cost of attending Hamilton is $75,200 including room and board. So having spent more than $40,000 a year to send young Charlie to The Shipley School, the Warzels then spent roughly $300,000 for their boy to get his diploma from Hamilton. Privilege, with a capital “P.”
Damn, I’ll never understand rich liberals. If I had that kind of money, my politics would be somewhere to the right of Pinochet, and yet America’s affluent elite are apparently so burdened with guilt it’s a wonder they haven’t committed mass suicide and willed their fortunes to UNICEF.
I want to take a moment and share a few observations about the GOP reaction to the leaked draft opinion of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade (with the obvious caveat that scope of the decision could still change before it becomes public next month).
I’d like to be very clear up front: The reaction to this opinion and the political jockeying is a second-order story compared to the actual, dire consequences for real people once states begin to criminalize abortion (and this is, in fact, the reason why the right is obsessing over it). And yet this reaction is important to understand as a tool in the broader right-wing culture war. What we’ve seen over the last day or so is a tried-and-true example of their sore-winners complex. . . .
(Notice he begins with the first-person singular “I,” which my teachers taught me to avoid, but perhaps the instructors at The Shipley School taught Charlie otherwise. At any rate, Charlie doesn’t want to talk about the Supreme Court’s decision, nor about the unprecedented leaking of a draft opinion, but rather “the GOP reaction,” which he insists his readers must “understand as a tool in the broader right-wing culture war.” By the way, to any journalism students who might happen to be reading this, permit me to advise avoiding trite phrases like “tried-and-true.”)
It is absolutely no secret that ending Roe has been the right’s political project for decades. As the writer Lyz Lenz said on Monday, “It’s always been the plan. And it’s never been a secret. The plan has been shouted at rallies. Held up on signs. It’s been plotted and spoken of and written about over and over.” The leaked opinion is that plan coming to fruition—the success of a long game of often-shameless political maneuvering. Republican reaction to the leak was, of course, faux outrage. . . .
(True, opposition to abortion — and specifically overturning Roe v. Wade — has been on the conservative agenda “for decades,” in quite the same way that imposing same-sex marriage nationwide was on the liberal agenda “for decades” before the Obergefell decision. However, the leaking of a draft opinion, weeks ahead of when the Supreme Court was expected to issue its ruling on the Mississippi case, was self-evidently calculated to bring pressure on the justices, an attempt to use protest mobs to intimidate the court. It is not unusual for there to be rumors of which way the Supreme Court is leaning on a decision, but this business of leaking a draft opinion is unprecedented, as far as I’m aware. Whatever you say about Republican reaction, their outrage about this leak is certainly not “faux.”)
But the focus on the leak over the substance is telling.
First, it is an act of deflection geared toward minimizing the sweeping and radical nature of this ruling. Not only is a majority of the American public in support of abortion rights and against the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but, as my colleague Adam Serwer argued, “in the U.S., the rights of many marginalized groups are tied to the legal precedents established in the fight for abortion rights. This opinion, if adopted, provides a path to nullifying those rights one by one.” . . .
(Wow, way to line up those dominoes and tip them all over at once. After declaring the draft opinion to be of a “sweeping and radical nature” — hint, not really — Warzel invites his reader to go flying down the slippery slope as all “the rights of many marginalized groups” are wiped out in the blink of an eye. Some of us, who would be to the right of Pinochet if we could afford it, might wish it were so, except that a careful reading of Alito’s draft discloses no such radicalism. All the ruling would do is to return us to the pre-Roe situation, in which laws regulating abortion were decided by state legislatures. The Burger court had no business arrogating to itself the authority to void the laws of 49 states, which is what Roe did, and if it took nearly 50 years to end that usurpation of authority, that’s only because the liberals were so firmly entrenched in the judiciary that even many Republicans didn’t know how they could ever be uprooted. So while we might, in our Pinochet-loving fantasies, dream of the oppression to be inflicted on “marginalized groups” as a consequence of Alito’s ruling, no such result is likely, no matter what that hysterical idiot Adam Serwer says.)
It is in the best interest of the right to obfuscate and downplay the monumental implications of such a ruling — especially until it is officially enshrined by the court. And the best way to do that is by ginning up a political scandal. Leak obsession and speculation happens to be a favorite topic in the political press especially — this is a media story, but it is also a story about power struggles inside a famously opaque institution.
It is, in other words, a story that mainstream news organizations find impossible to resist covering and prioritizing. . . .
(Speaking of obfuscation, notice how easily Warzel slides over that phrase “until it is officially enshrined by the court,” which would seem to be a tacit admission that the purpose of the leak was to prevent such an enshrinement. Such an admission, however, would give away the game — i.e., the outrage over the leak is legitimate, if such was the leaker’s intent — and so Warzel doesn’t want his readers to think too much about this attempt to apply external pressure on the court, but rather to focus on the nefarious tactics of Republicans.)
Second, the sore-winners tactic is also an example of the sheer relentlessness of the far-right’s culture warring. Political wins are celebrated internally, but externally each victory is treated as an opportunity to double down on a victimization narrative and politics of grievance. . . .
(Projection much, Charlie? The entire stock in trade of the liberal movement is about victimhood — everybody’s “oppressed” and deprived of their “rights,” and the only way to remedy this is to vote Democrat! The liberal narrative features a rotating cast of “marginalized” victims — one week, it’s criminals shot by cops, the next week, it’s college graduates who can’t pay back their student loans — and if you want to talk about “sheer relentlessness,” nobody could hope to exceed the LGBTQ movement in inventing new grievances. Anyway, after a lot of blah, blah, blah about Orange Man Bad, Warzel finally reaches his conclusion.)
The sore-winner complex highlights a fundamental asymmetry between the style of culture warring employed by the left and right. The right’s vision is ahistorical and logically confused, but more importantly, it is relentless. There is no appeasing this type of politics. It is a politics that will manage to use its victories to stoke additional fears inside its voters. For the media, there is no amount of evenhanded or both-sides coverage that will get the right to back down from calling the press illegitimate, biased, and corrupt. For non-Republican politicians, there is no amount of bipartisan language or good faith attempts at dialogue or engagement that will inspire bipartisanship, compromise, and a desire for majority rule. For the right, even in victory, there is only grievance and fear.
What this prep-school alumnus is actually telling us is that conservatives have learned to play the same game that Democrats have been playing forever. Whose vision is “ahistorical,” Mr. Warzel? You seem to have forgotten all the fear-stoking and grievance-mongering that Democrats have done over the years. How about this one?
“Romney wants to — he said in the first hundred days
he’s going to let the big banks once again
write their own rules. Unchain Wall Street!
They’re going to put y’all back in chains.”
Really? You forgot that one? You know who the “y’all” Biden was referencing during that 2012 campaign speech in Virginia? As if Mitt Romney, of all people, was some kind of closet segregationist? Oh, spare me your lectures about “faux outrage” and imaginary “grievance,” Mr. Wurzel. What really bothers you is that, in the post-Trump era, some Republicans have finally wised up to the way Democrats have been playing this game, and are now playing it even better. Speaking of this leaked draft, by the way, it’s had the unexpected effect of causing some Democrats to declare their enthusiasm for late-term abortion, a stance which isn’t likely to play well in swing states like Ohio. Hit it, J.D.!
Here’s Kamala Harris stooge Tim Ryan defending abortion through 40 weeks. This is a barbaric position anywhere in the world (even European nations typically don’t allow abortion after 12 weeks). But it’s an especially radical position in Ohio. https://t.co/ObtePxlUHH
Yeah, that’s gonna leave a mark. Reckon Democrats can kiss their Senate majority good-bye and it’s only a matter of time before the Republican regime is dropping liberals out of helicopters.
Augusto Pinochet could not be reached for comment.
In the 24 hours since Politico leaked the draft of the Supreme Court majority decision which, evidently, will overturn Roe v. Wade, liberals have outdone themselves in piling up stupid “hot takes” on Twitter. None of them, however, exceeded the stupidity of Amanda Duarte’s take:
Gosh, I just can’t understand why he would do that.
She now is getting revenge (not only on her ex-husband, but also the world in general) by smoking a lot of weed and having sex with random strangers she meets on Tinder. Which, I suppose, makes her happy. The random strangers could not be reached for comment.
So after making the Worst Twitter “Hot Take” Ever, first Duarte deleted her account, then changed her mind, and issued an apology:
Duarte, who obviously never had any children herself, seems rather obsessed with other people’s reproductive activity and — although she is rather pallid herself — seems fixated on the idea that white people specifically are doing something wrong in this regard. And I certainly wouldn’t encourage anyone to harass her, because whatever wrong she has committed, no doubt it is punishment enough that she has to spend the rest of her life . . . as herself. What misery that must be!
In case you missed it this week, the Supreme Court refused to grant an injunction against a new so-called “heartbeat” law in Texas. The law prohibits abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, basically six weeks into gestation — which is only about a month after a pregnant woman would have missed her period. Most abortions are performed later than this, and therefore this new law very nearly outlaws abortion. Democrats are having a complete meltdown over the Texas law, with Joe Biden promising a “whole-of-government effort” to ensure that . . .
Well, those Texas babies must die. It’s imperative, for some reason.
This takes us back to the original problem with Roe v. Wade. What had happened, in the few years before that 1973 Supreme Court decision, was that some states had liberalized their abortion laws, while other states hadn’t. Prior to the mid-1960s, it was very difficult to get an abortion in the United States not just because of state laws, but also because the Hippocratic Oath forbids it, and reputable doctors would have nothing to do with such an immoral and unethical practice. In 1970, New York legalized abortions in nearly all cases, up until 24 weeks (i.e., six months) of pregnancy. This created a situation in which pregnant women from other states seeking abortions flocked to New York, where abortionists were very busy for the next few years while the Roe v. Wade (and lesser-known Doe v. Bolton) cases made their way to the Supreme Court, which voted 7-2 to, in effect, apply the New York law nationwide.
As Ronald Reagan said, what the Supreme Court did in this case was to declare the laws of 49 states null and void — based on what? There was nothing at all in the Constitution about abortion, and the 10th Amendment certainly would protect the right of states to legislate in such matters, as in fact they had done for more than 150 years. In his dissent, Justice Byron White described the majority’s ruling in Roe v. Wade as “an exercise of raw judicial power”:
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right . . . and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.
It was this billionaire-funded movement, with its alarmist rhetoric about the dangers of “overpopulation,” that was the real driving power behind the Roe v. Wade decision, and talk about “women’s rights” was just camouflage for the population control agenda. People let themselves be deceived about this not only because they bought into phony propaganda about the alleged constitutional “right” involved, but also because they didn’t want to deal with the uncomfortable truth.
So now, after nearly half-a-century of conservative promises to do something about the abortion issue, Texas Republicans have finally gone far enough to directly challenge Roe v. Wade, and guess what? The alleged Principled Conservatives™ are against it:
Political commentator Bill Kristol said Friday on CNN’s “Newsroom” that the new Texas abortion law is “extreme” and “un-American.” . . .
Kristol said, “Well, it’s so extreme. Six-week limit, which is actually less than six weeks if you look at the details of the law, six weeks not from the inception of pregnancy, and then this kind of snitch, you know, snitch on your neighbors’ aspect, which seems pretty un-American.”
He added, “So I think it’s a foolish law from the pro-life point of view. It’s not going to advance the cause. I don’t think it’s going to save a lot of unborn babies honestly in Texas, and it’s going to cause a big backlash in Texas and elsewhere.”
Got that? Texans are “un-American,” according to Bill Kristol. He repeats the Left’s distortions about the law which, as Carrie Severino explains, “allows private citizens to file suit against any person who provides an abortion or aids or abets such an abortion.” How that gets twisted into an “un-American snitch-on-your-neighbors” scheme, I don’t know, but CNN isn’t going to ask Kristol any tough questions about it. The Court went out of its way to emphasize that its denial of an injunction against the Texas law was not “substantive,” but rather they ruled that the challenge to the law was procedurally flawed. This won’t stop the hair-on-fire liberals from running around waving coat hangers at protests. What the Texas legislature has done — and quite cleverly — is to set up a scenario in which abortion providers could go bankrupt trying to defend themselves against lawsuits. Awww, wouldn’t that be a shame, if Planned Parenthood were forced to spend money defending its gruesome business in Texas courts, instead of spending money to help elect Democrats?
You think Democrats are too stupid to see this threat for what it is?
No, Joe Biden and his friends aren’t concerned about the “rights” of Texas women, they’re concerned about the millions of dollars in campaign cash they get from Planned Parenthood. There is a symbiotic relationship between the abortion industry and the Democratic Party, and Texas has put itself in a position to destroy that lucrative nexus.
Meanwhile, Principled Conservative™ Rick Wilson and the Lincoln Project are demanding a business boycott of Texas.
Ace of Spades really hates these guys, and insists they were always secretly liberals, sabotaging the conservative movement from the inside. Because I’m a cynic, however, I think the correct explanation is that all of these guys were just careerists, in it for the money, and when Trump came along, they saw an opportunity to cash in. That, plus the desire to garner “Strange News Respect” from the liberal media. So by my way of thinking, these guys never really believed in anything but the advancement of their own narrow self-interest, and they don’t believe in anything now. They were, and still are, just political whores.
'What a fraud': Thread takes a look back at how Lincoln Project's Rick Wilson used to feel about abortion before he realized dead babies were better for business https://t.co/MSP88qdAKp
