Tag Archives: Abortion

About “Choice”, by Eric Peters

Don’t confuse the liberal demand for freedom of choice, that is, the choice for abortion, with anything approaching freedom and choice in many other areas of life. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

It’s said by some that the reason Leftists did much better-than-expected in the recent midterms is because Leftists value “choice” – as regards abortion. They value it so highly that they’re willing to sacrifice everything else to protect it – including the freedom of others to choose not wear “masks” or be forced to choose between “vaccination” (sic) and economic and social exclusion.

This shows us, of course, that it isn’t really about “choice.” It is about abortion facilitating choices the Left likes – and wants to disconnect consequences from.

The chief choice being the right to have as much thoughtless, consequence-free sex as possible. Which – ruefully – is a right. As regardless the thoughtless sex. In the same way that a person has the right to drink as much alcohol as they like. A right being simply an acknowledgement of respect for a person’s – here it comes – right to choose.

Continue reading→

Republicans Find Their Footing On Abortion, by Susan Crabtree

Some Republicans have stopped playing defense on abortion. From Susan Crabtree at realclearwire.com:

Earlier this week, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio stood his ground on a debate stage at the Lake Worth campus of Palm Beach College. His opponent is seasoned Democratic lawmaker Val Demings, a black congresswoman and former police chief, and the discussion had turned to abortion rights – terrain that Democrats believe favor them and give Demings and other Senate candidates a chance to alter the expected outcome of the 2022 midterms.

“I’m 100% pro-life not because I want to deny anyone their rights but because I believe that innocent human life is worthy of the protection under the law,” Rubio said. While noting he has supported legislation that includes exceptions for rape, incest, and the mother’s health, he then went on offense, arguing that “the extremist on abortion in this campaign” is his opponent.

Like Democrats around the country, Demings had been running ads hitting her Republican opponent on abortion for more than a month. During their debate, Rubio delivered his rebuttal. “She supports no restrictions, no limitations of any kind – she’s against a four-month ban, she voted against a five-month ban,” he said. “She supports taxpayer-funded abortion on demand for any reason any time up until the moment of birth.”

Continue reading→

“He’s A Public Employee. Fire his A**”: Critics Call For Harbaugh To Be Canned For Coming Out As Pro-Life, by Jonathan Turley

There are a lot more Americans who share football coach Jim Harbaugh’s views on abortion than all his woke critics seeking to cancel him. As many a corporation is finding out, there are a lot more Americans who ignore or despise woke garbage than its relatively few but tireless proponents. Enough is enough. From Jonathan Turley at jonathanturley.org:

University of Michigan football head coach Jim Harbaugh is facing calls for his termination after he went public with his pro-life views. Harbaugh is a devout Catholic and said that “I believe in having the courage to let the unborn be born.” The response has been overwhelming and furious, but it is unlikely that Harbaugh (who just signed signed a 5-year, $36.7 million contract) will be canned. It is an interesting comparison to the successful campaign recently to force a NFL coach to withdraw his comments about Jan. 6th. Yet, if critics had their way, both coaches would be fired for holding dissenting views on such issues.

Harbaugh spoke at the Plymouth Right to Life dinner on Sunday and reportedly shared his own religious beliefs in favor of life.

“I love life. I believe in having a loving care and respect for life and death. My faith and my science are what drives these beliefs in me. [Quoting Jeremiah 1:5] ‘Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart. I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.’

There are many things one may hold to be immoral, but the government appropriately allows because of some greater good or personal or constitutional right.

Ultimately, I don’t believe that is the case with abortion. Yes, there are conflicts between the legitimate rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child. One resolution might involve incredible hardship for the mother, family and society. Another results in the death of an unborn person…

In God’s plan, each unborn human truly has a future filled with potential, talent, dreams and love,” Harbaugh said. “I have living proof in my family, my children, and the many thousands that I’ve coached that the unborn are amazing gifts from God to make this world a better place. To me, the right choice is to have the courage to let the unborn be born.”

Continue reading→

Woke ‘Rights’ Are All Based On Coercion, by Georgi Boorman

A “right” exercised at the point of a gun is not a right. From Georgi Boorman at thefederalist.com:

Supreme Court

The litany of woke entitlements alleged by the left infringe on existing rights, restricting the freedoms of some in order to benefit others.

When the political left finds a meme they really think sells, they go all-in. Such is the case with “forced birth” or “forced motherhood” in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and stated a Constitutional right to abortion does not exist. I wrote recently about how “forced birth” is a nonsensical description of pregnancies resulting (as is almost always the case) from consensual sex. Babies are a natural consequence of sex and procreation is the primary reason sex exists in the first place.

“Forced birth” or “forced motherhood” are projections of the left’s own brutality and reliance on force onto their political and cultural opposition. Abortion is force. Abortion kills; it is a brutal denial of this tiny, developing human’s right to life, the most fundamental of all rights. For the woman’s “right” to be exercised, another life must end.

This wretched truth differs from the left’s construction of other “rights” only in degree, not in kind. They predicate many of their “fundamental rights” on the coercion of others, and if a so-called “right” is based on coercion, it is not fundamental, merely an entitlement guaranteed by a bully state.

Continue reading→

Roe is history. The left is furious. They ought to be contrite. By Phil Boas

Roe v. Wade was one of the most poorly reasoned Supreme Court decisions in history, and it’s distorted law and politics ever since. Good riddance. From Phil Boas at azcentral.com:

Instead of fuming, maybe Democrats should be contrite about the unearned advantage they got from Roe v. Wade

The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C.
Mariam Zuhaib/AP

For more than a month, pro-abortion militants have been firebombing and smashing churches and anti-abortion family centers in anticipation of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.

On Friday they planned “A Night of Rage” to scream at conservative justices and to put the anti-abortion right on notice:

“To our oppressors: If abortions aren’t safe, you’re not either. Jane’s Revenge.”

The group’s name likely derives from the Jane Collective, part of the abortion underground in 1970s Chicago, reports Newsweek and Fox News.

They are the pro-abortion radicals. On Friday, slightly less-radical voices in Washington were burning on lower flame.

* “(This is) one of the darkest days our country has ever seen,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., as reported in the Washington Post. “Millions upon millions of American women are having their rights taken from them by five unelected justices on the extremist MAGA court.”

Continue reading→

Thoughts on Justice Alito’s Draft Opinion, by Andrew P. Napolitano

The right to life is the ultimate natural right and if life begins at conception then Alito’s draft opinion reaches the wrong result—leaving the matter up to the states—on the wrong Constitutional rationale. From Andrew P. Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

In the pilfered draft opinion authored by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, he wrote that Roe v. Wade — the court’s 1973 opinion that prohibited the states from banning abortions during the first six months of pregnancy — and Planned Parenthood v. Casey — its 1992 opinion that modified Roe but essentially upheld it — were both egregiously wrong when decided, are egregiously wrong today and so should be overruled.

The practical effect of overruling Roe and Casey will be to return the issue of the lawfulness of abortion to the states, thus liberating all states to legislate as they wish — to ban all abortions or to permit them even AFTER the moment of birth.

Though I agree that Roe and Casey were and are wrong, I do so for reasons differently than those stated in the Alito draft. One of those reasons — that unenumerated rights today must have a long history of recognition — is deeply troubling to those who believe that personal sovereignty trumps governmental power.

Continue reading→

The Irrational, Misguided Discourse Surrounding Supreme Court Controversies Such as Roe v. Wade, by Glenn Greenwald

The Supreme Court is not supposed to wholeheartedly embrace democracy; it is supposed to be a check on it. From Glen Greenwald at greenwald.substack.com:

The Court, like the U.S. Constitution, was designed to be a limit on the excesses of democracy. Roe denied, not upheld, the rights of citizens to decide democratically.

Protesters gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court on May 03, 2022, in Washington, DC, after a leaked initial draft majority opinion obtained by Politico, in which Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito allegedly wrote for the Court’s majority that Roe v. Wade should be overturned (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Politico on Monday night published what certainly appears to be a genuine draft decision by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Alito’s draft ruling would decide the pending case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which concerns the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy except in the case of medical emergency or severe fetal abnormalities. Given existing Supreme Court precedent that abortion can only be restricted after fetal viability, Mississippi’s ban on abortions after the 15th week — at a point when the fetus is not yet deemed viable — is constitutionally dubious. To uphold Mississippi’s law — as six of the nine Justices reportedly wish to do — the Court must either find that the law is consistent with existing abortion precedent, or acknowledge that it conflicts with existing precedent and then overrule that precedent on the ground that it was wrongly decided.

Alito’s draft is written as a majority opinion, suggesting that at least five of the Court’s justices — a majority — voted after oral argument in Dobbs to overrule Roe on the ground that it was “egregiously wrong from the start” and “deeply damaging.” In an extremely rare event for the Court, an unknown person with unknown motives leaked the draft opinion to Politico, which justifiably published it. A subsequent leak to CNN on Monday night claimed that the five justices in favor of overruling Roe were Bush 43 appointee Alito, Bush 41 appointee Clarence Thomas, and three Trump appointees (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett), while Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by Bush 43, is prepared to uphold the constitutionality of Mississippi’s abortion law without overruling Roe.

Continue reading→

Why Social Issues Dominate, by Jeff Deist

One rule to bind them all, rather than 50 different rules shaped to the population of each particular state. If indeed Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will kick the abortion issue back to the states, where it has always belonged. The thought is anathema to totalitarian liberals (but I repeat myself). From Jeff Deist at mises.org:

Inflation in the US is at forty-year highs, while interest rates on ten-year Treasury notes just hit 3 percent—signaling trouble for home buyers. Truck drivers pay more than $1,000 to fill their rigs with $5 per gallon diesel to deliver your increasingly expensive groceries and Amazon packages. Crime and homelessness skyrocket in large cities, exacerbated by virulent opioids like fentanyl and krokodil. And America’s proxy war with Russia in Ukraine gives rise to the most serious threats of nuclear strikes against the West since the 1960s.

Yet so-called social issues, from abortion to critical race theory to teaching gender identity in elementary schools, dominate our politics and media. Virtually every voter has a strong opinion on these issues, and pays far more attention to them than, say, the M2 money supply or the next Fed Open Market Committee meeting—though the latter could have a far greater impact on that voter’s life and finances.

Why is this so?

The short answer is the Supreme Court.

Continue reading→

Abortion and the Constitution, by Andrew P. Napolitano

The key Constitutional concept in the abortion debate, according to Andrew Napolitano, is not viability but personhood. From Napolitano at lewrockwell.com:

“The fetus has an interest in having a life.”
–Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Dec. 1, 2021

Last week’s oral argument in the Supreme Court about abortion was both humdrum and arcane. Humdrum because we already knew where the nine justices stand on the morality of abortion. Arcane because the questions and answers were largely not about abortion, but about stare decisis, the legal doctrine that calls for settled law not to be lightly disturbed. What brought this about?

Mississippi has enacted into law a statute that prohibits abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. That statute directly conflicts with two major Supreme Court opinions on abortion, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

The 1973 Roe decision establishes a trimester system during which the state’s interest in protecting the life of the baby in the womb does not come into being until the third trimester of pregnancy. More importantly, Roe holds that the states may not ban abortions prior to fetal viability, roughly at the end of the first trimester, around 23 weeks.

The Casey opinion, 19 years after Roe and with a largely different membership in the court, upheld Roe’s no-abortions-until-viability standard and added a new rule that prohibited the states from imposing any undue burden on mothers seeking abortions.

Thus, Mississippi — and Texas, which prohibits abortions after six weeks, right behind it — is effectively asking the court to overrule both Roe and Casey. The Mississippi argument states that because the Constitution is silent on abortion or any kind of killing, its Framers must have intended to leave regulation of those subjects to the states. The counterargument is that women have personal autonomy over their bodies and that autonomy trumps any state interest at any time.

Continue reading→

Pro-Life, Pro-Liberty, by Ron Paul

Roe v. Wade is one of the most poorly reasoned and legally substantiated cases in Supreme Court history. You can find a Constitutional rationale for allowing the states to make their own decisions on abortion. It lurks in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which unfortunately had been read out of the Constitution by the time Roe v. Wade was decided. From Ron Paul at ronpaulinstitute.org:

Abortion has returned to the headlines thanks to Texas’ “heartbeat law.” As the name suggests, this law outlaws abortions performed after doctors can detect a fetal heartbeat. This is one of several recently passed state laws restricting abortion.

The US Supreme Court will soon consider a challenge to a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks. A court majority may use this case as a vehicle to limit or even overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision in which the court declared a federal abortion right.

All who support limited, constitutional government should support overturning Roe. The Constitution does not give any branch of the federal government authority to decide what does, and does not, constitute murder. Therefore, federal courts — including the Supreme Court — have no jurisdiction to decide what the penalty should be for performing an abortion.
Overturning Roe would not create a nationwide abortion ban. Instead, it would return to the individual states responsibility for deciding what, if any, restrictions to place on abortion.

If supporters of abortion “followed the science,” they would have to admit that abortion is the taking of human life. A fetus with a heartbeat is developing, but is also still a human with a right to life.

The Biden Justice Department is supporting efforts to overturn the Texas heartbeat law in federal court. President Biden is also supporting the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of federal funds for abortions. If Biden and Congress are going to use tax dollars to support abortions, then they should allow anti-abortion taxpayers to withhold the percentage of their taxes that would be used to support abortion. The same should go for those with moral objections to America’s militaristic foreign policy that forces US taxpayers to subsidize the killing of innocent men, women, and even children.

Continue reading→