Tag: Dobbs

‘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.

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?

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.

Nic Rowan, managing editor of The Lamp, joins Jack to relate what he saw at the Court the day Dobbs came down, and to dicuss what comes next for the pro-life movement.

How Corporate America’s Offer to Fund Abortion-Related Travel Betrays a Deeply Perverse Incentive

 

Late last week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down what many consider its most important decision in half a century.

Rejecting the flawed and constitutionally bankrupt reasoning of Roe and Casey, the majority ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization marks a clear turning point in the decades-long battle over abortion. At long last, this crucial issue is returned to the people, to be decided by the constitutionally established political system envisioned by our nation’s founders.

As expected, the response to the ruling from the right and left has tracked along long-standing dividing lines. Abortion opponents—myself included—are celebrating a crucial victory that is a major step forward in protecting innocent lives from the deadly practice. Meanwhile, abortion advocates are loudly decrying the Court’s reversal of the landmark 1973 ruling that overrode existing abortion restrictions across the country and imposed a regime that banned even the most modest protections for unborn children and their mothers.

Join Jim and Greg as they break down the monumental U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey decisions that had declared a constitutional right to an abortion. They welcome the ruling as being correct from a constitutional perspective and for the good it will do in saving lives.  They also note that not much immediately changes on abortion law and that the 50 states will now determine how they each approach the issue.

In addition, they point out the Homeland Security warning about widespread violence as a result of the ruling, and Jim highlights how the decision of a justice who strongly supported abortion contributed significantly to Friday’s verdict.

Final Dobbs Draft Also Overturns New Deal

 

A leaked version of what appears to be the final draft of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health goes further than the original draft leaked on May 2. In addition to striking down the Roe precedent, the court also abrogated the New Deal signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. 

The court’s final ruling vis-à-vis Roe remains identical to the first draft ruling, with the exception of a single corrected misspelling. 

The majority ruling surprised many court watchers by even addressing the New Deal, let alone striking it down in its entirety. “This court has been living a lie for nearly a century” the Alito-authored final draft begins. The opinion goes on to say that the Supreme Court will “no longer uphold blatantly unconstitutional laws simply because of cheap threats of court-packing from the Executive.” The ruling also added that any president or Congress that attempts to follow through on such threats can “suck it.”