Tag: abortion

‘Pro-Choice’ Was Always a Lie

 

Tweet from women's march reading "we're not just pro-choice. We are proudly, unapologetically pro-abortion"Today, the official Twitter account for the Women’s March (@womensmarch) tweeted what many of us in the pro-life movement have known for a long time: they are not pro-choice, they are “proudly, unapologetically pro-abortion” (emphasis added).

For years, the left has hidden behind the polite term “pro-choice,” arguing abortion is a solemn, serious medical decision best left up to a woman and her doctor. There was a time they said abortion should be “safe, legal, and rare,” too. Both those arguments have been undermined by what the left actually does.

They wear t-shirts and vagina costumes and march in Handmaid’s outfits. They have abortion parades on television and invade Catholic masses. They burn crisis pregnancy centers and threaten to outlaw them with legislation. They’ve pushed for unrestricted abortion on demand, going so far as to attempt to codify abortion through all nine months of pregnancy at the federal level earlier this year. The Orwellian-titled “Women’s Health Protection Act” failed in the Senate, 49-51.

Join Jim and Greg as they welcome evidence that Americans are very focused on the border crisis and crime after widespread coverage of GOP governors sending migrants from our overwhelmed border to self-proclaimed sanctuary cities. They also call out the immense media hypocrisy as the national outlets largely ignore a man fatally running over a teenager in North Dakota because he was allegedly part of an “extremist” group. And they rip Stacey Abrams for insisting that there is no fetal heartbeat after six weeks of pregnancy and that ultrasounds are tools used by men for control women’s bodies.

What Does Lindsey Graham’s ‘Abortion Ban’ Accomplish?

 

You’ve likely seen the headlines, often wildly inaccurate, on Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) legislation to federalize abortion laws. It would prohibit abortions after 15 weeks, which some claim is when a fetus feels pain, except to save the life of the mother.

“Lindsey Graham’s national abortion ban bill makes the midterm stakes very clear,” screamed Vox, a leftist blog site. “Lindsey Graham proposes new national abortion restrictions bill,” proclaimed Axios, a fast-growing leftist news site.

Join Jim and Greg as they serve up one bad martini and two crazy ones. First, Jim lays out the details of the looming freight rail strike or lockout that could do serious damage to our economy and why there are several indicators that there won’t be a deal by Friday. They also hammer Never Trump Utah “independent” Senate candidate Evan McMullin who ran for president in 2016 vowing to end Roe v. Wade and is now decrying the Supreme Court ruling and vowing to restore abortion if elected. And they roll their eyes as White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre says it is Republicans’ fault that the border is a mess.

Member Post

 

Just saw that Lindsay Graham has introduced a bill to ban abortion after 15 weeks, with exceptions for rape, incest, life of the mother. My immediate reaction? He is handing the Democrats a huge issue right before the midterms!! First, the Supreme Court just returned the issue to the states. Not a federal issue. Preview […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Join Jim and Greg as they take Arizona GOP Senate nominee Blake Masters to task for significantly changing his official position on abortion just weeks after winning the primary. But they also encourage Republicans to go on offense over the radical Democratic position of any abortion at any time for any reason. They also shake their heads as European nations are about to pay through the nose for Russian energy this winter, despite longstanding U.S. warnings not to be dependent upon Russian energy. They also detail how Biden’s policies have U.S. energy prices poised to skyrocket right after the midterm elections. And they discuss how Hollywood’s drought of compelling stories may be linked to the entertainment industry adhering to woke ideology in its content.

Member Post

 

Having been involved in special congressional elections, they are often hard to poll and analyze. They typically aren’t “bellwethers” until they are. This is especially true for special elections in districts that coincide with decennial redistricting. That can be very confusing. An especially painful memory involves a special election I helped co-manage. In 1985, following […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade has led to a flurry of commentary, and wondering, “Where next?” But, it also begs deeper questions: what is the history of abortion and sex-positivity within the feminist movement, and how did Roe affect our views on sex? Feminist legal scholar Dr. Erika Bachiochi is the founder and director of the Wollstonecraft Project at the Abigail Adams Institute and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Here, she discusses these questions as well as her recent book on Mary Wollstonecraft, The Rights of Women: Reclaiming a Lost Vision.

Her book may be purchased here: https://www.amazon.com/Rights-Women-Reclaiming-Catholic-Secular/dp/0268200815

Join Greg and Scot Bertram as they hammer the Biden administration and Democrats for promising a bill to lower inflation but really just spends more, taxes, more, and harasses middle class Americans. They also wonder what is happening at The Atlantic as it publishes a story downplaying far-left attacks on pro-life organizations but blasts the pro-life community for pointing out that it’s happening. And they sigh as the World Heath Organization won’t be honest about how to stop monkeypox but it’s super worried that the name monkeypox could be stigmatizing.

 

What Happened in Kansas

 

A few weeks ago, I got into an argument with my mother about Amendment 2, an attempt in the State of Kansas to amend the State Constitution to allow restrictions on abortion without interference from the State Supreme Court. The court had ruled in 2019, via the use of auguries and animal entrails because it sure wasn’t in the actual language, that the Constitution allowed abortion on demand. Mom’s politics are all over the place, but her religious beliefs are pretty nearly Fundamentalist, so it felt a little surreal to find out she was voting no. In our half-hour argument, I bet I heard the words “ectopic pregnancy” and “miscarriage’ at least a dozen times. I assured her that the amendment wouldn’t threaten the life of the mother in difficult pregnancy situations and kept trying to steer the conversation back to abortion, but she would have none of it. At one point, she yelled, “If this thing passes, women are gonna die.” Later, as I reflected on the conversation, for the first time I sensed that the amendment might lose.

Prior to the Dobbs decision, I had no such sense. Throughout the springtime, you only saw signs supporting a yes vote and the ads on the radio were all for the affirmative. I live a rather sheltered life here in the heartland, but there didn’t seem to be much national interest in our debate and all the enthusiasm was on one side. That continued past the leaked Alito opinion, but it radically changed when the Dobbs decision became official. For the pro-abortion crowd, the Kansas election suddenly became the most important vote in the world. The election still didn’t generate much national journalistic interest (we are talking about Kansas, after all), but a massive amount of money came pouring into the State. “No” vote ads swamped social media and the airwaves and signs began to pop up all over. Every day brought another “vote no” flyer in the mail.

Join Jim and Greg as they breathe a big sigh of relief that Eric Schmitt will be the GOP nominee for U.S. Senate in Missouri – and also that Eric Greitens won’t be. They also wince as the pro-life side takes a drubbing in Kansas but aren’t convinced there’s been a sea change in the midterms. And they try to sort out America’s paradoxical “One China Policy.”

 

Member Post

 

I don’t know much about Kansas politics.  It generally seems to be a strongly conservative and “red” state.  President Trump won Kansas by just over 20% in the 2016 election, and by almost 15% in the 2020 election. Kansas had a state constitutional amendment on the ballot yesterday (August 2).  Apparently, a 2019 state court […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Abortion, Slavery – Who’s Claiming Ownership Over Human Bodies?

 

I don’t pay much attention to what Vice President Kamala Harris says because so little of what she says makes sense. So, I’m late to hearing about her speech to an NAACP conference in which she compared restrictions on abortion to historical American slavery.

VP Harris: “We know, NAACP, that our country has a history of claiming ownership over human bodies.” She then referenced “extremists” seeking to criminalize abortion, apparently trying to say that people seeking to restrict abortion are claiming ownership over women’s bodies.

Join Jim and Greg as they serve up three good martinis! First, they welcome reports of the Senate Armed Services Committee demanding the Pentagon stop wasting taxpayer dollars searching the Armed Forces for domestic extremists, who seem to be quite rare. They also react to Brett Kavanaugh’s leftist neighbors getting fed up with the vulgar pro-abortion demonstrators who are still infesting the neighborhood. And they’re glad to see Bill de Blasio dropping out of the race for Congress and starting to realize just how much New Yorkers loathed his performance as mayor.

 

Forced to Carry a Dead Fetus: Medical Malpractice?

 

When I hear stories about doctors showing such poor decision-making skills, I have to wonder how they got through medical school. I am assuming, at the very least, that this story is true. And I also I wonder if these doctors are making political decisions about the SCOTUS ruling on Roe v. Wade or if they are genuinely confused. Either way, these situations should not be happening.

The most horrific story I read was of a woman who was forced to carry the remains of a miscarriage in her body for two weeks. Her doctor refused to remove the dead fetus, due to the changes of the law in Texas, even though the fetus showed no heartbeat on the ultrasound. You can read the entire story here.

Join Jim and Greg as the they welcome a new GOP bill to require child support from the month of conception. They also cringe at President Biden’s pathetic numbers of prosecutions for illegal border crossings even as illegal crossings hit record highs. And they unpack Biden’s disastrous trip to the Saudi Arabia.

 

The Abortion Decision Made Easy to Read for Both Sides

 

As people debate the new abortion case known as Dobbs, a common theme arises. One will ask, “Did you actually read the decision?” The other will respond, “No it’s too long and has legalese, but let me tell you what the court really meant.”

Don’t make fun of that person. They are at least right about the complexity. The decision is more than 200 pages and filled with phrases like “substantive due process” and “stare decisis.” Such phrases take whole semesters to learn in law school. How is the average person supposed to understand it?

It’s all crazy martinis today! Join Jim and Greg as they break down the criticism of First Lady Jill Biden after her cringeworthy pandering to Latinos in Texas. They also the growing evidence that the story of a 10-year-old girl being raped and denied an abortion may be pure fiction. And they groan at the calls for Tucker Carlson and Jon Stewart to run for president – which Stewart is thankfully rejecting at this point.

 

Protesters Target the Dobbs Majority

 

Among the most regrettable, if foreseeable, political consequences of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has been the rise of vehement and prolonged picketing outside the homes of the six conservative Supreme Court justices, both before and after the decision came down June 24.

The key controversy is whether this picketing is protected by the First Amendment or whether it is just the latest version of high-tech intimidation that should be banned by forcibly removing the pickets before violence occurs. Regrettably, too many First Amendment experts, like George Washington Law School Professor Jonathan Turley, have adopted what I termed a generation ago First Amendment exceptionalism. This dangerous attitude turns “Congress shall make no law . . .  abridging the freedom of speech” into a general mandate offering protection to all sorts of aggressive conduct, when the clause’s proper office is to prevent aggressive legislation from outlawing all forms of dissent displeasing or offensive to the powers that be.

Today, both the federal government and the states take the position that the only response to menacing pickets is to allow them to remain in place, while providing the targets of that picketing extensive security measures to prevent outright violence in ways consistent with recent legislation that affords the justices round-the-clock security “on par with those granted to some members of the executive and legislative branches.” The pickets use bullhorns, and their actions surely inhibit the free entry to and exit from these residences by the justices and their families. The presence of an armed guard only raises the bedlam. Multiple alternative forums are available to protest Dobbs, but this ugly combination of intimidation and invasion of privacy is tolerated as the new normal. Moving the demonstrators to another place would avoid these dreadful complications.

The Abortion War’s Next Battlefront: Building a Culture of Life

 

When the Supreme Court overturned the 50-year-old Roe v. Wade decision on June 24, it didn’t “settle” the issue of abortion in America. SCOTUS moved the battleground from the courts – where the issue never belonged, and most people don’t want it – to their elected representatives. SCOTUS held that they didn’t have the authority to make policy on abortion – just who should make it.

Annual “March for Life” protester in Washington, DC (Reuters photo, via National Review magazine)

But other consequences are emerging as well. First, reasonable people – not the ones yelling “shout your abortion!” – are thinking and talking with each other. And as they do, they’re confronting the fundamental question – is it a child? And if it is – the science is undeniable, unless you believe the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium – then what is the government’s role in protecting innocent human life?