abortion on demand, Andrew McCarthy, birthing persons, Casey, Catholics, CNN, DHS Secretary Mayorkas, Elizabeth Warren, Governor Yoiungkin, Hollywood actresses, Jen Psaki, joe biden, Justice Alito, other's Day, Roe, single-issue voters, Supreme Court, Women
The only question before the Supreme Court is not: “should women have the right to abortion?” It is: “does the Constitution acknowledge, establish or preserve such a right? Justice Alito correctly concludes it does not. That’s the Court’s role in a representative republic. Nothing else. The rest is up to the state legislatures in response to the will of their people. Consider this from Steven Hayward at Powerline:
‘For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother…’
Wait—did I say this was in Justice Alito’s Dobbs draft opinion? I mis-spoke. These passages appear in Justice Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v. Wade.
In other words, the original Roe language, held sacred by the left, allowed for restrictions on abortion. So how did it become in practice a writ for unlimited abortion on demand? The ‘exception’ for the preservation of the life and health of the mother became the loophole through which abortion became virtually unlimited, as it is not difficult to find a doctor who will ‘find’ that the ‘mental health’ of a woman requires an abortion. (This is one reason why many European nations, which have stricter abortion regulations than the new Mississippi law will impose, require a second opinion before an abortion is granted outside the first 14 weeks.) It was a short step from this loophole to the 1992 Casey decision’s new but undefined ‘undue burden’ standard that made Roe’s ambiguous language obsolete.
Hayward’s point, gentle readers, and mine, is Roe polling must be taken with not a grain, but a block of salt. Very few Americans have read Roe, or Casey, nor do they apprehend the legal implications. As I noted in An Abortion Of A Leak, this is an issue almost entirely understood and argued on emotion. For those wanting to be better informed, Roe (1973) may be found here, and Casey (1992), here.
In that earlier article, I suggested the leak of Justice Alito’s early draft of a decision in the current abortion case would not rescue D/S/C’s from the disaster of their policies and personalities in the 2022 mid-term elections. Let’s explore that assertion a bit more thoroughly, beginning with Brietbart.com:
On Friday’s ‘CNN Newsroom,’ co-host and Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto reported that after the leak of the Supreme Court’s draft opinion on Roe v.Wade, ‘Capitol Police are warning the far right is calling for violence against a religious group planning to rally for abortion rights.’
Sciutto stated, ‘This morning, law enforcement officials are preparing for potential violence in the capital and nationwide after the leak of that Supreme Court draft opinion that would strike down Roe v. Wade after 50 years. Capitol Police are warning the far right is calling for violence against a religious group planning to rally for abortion rights.’
Of course, the Harris/Biden/Whoever Administration–Joe Biden, Temporary President–is pushing the same narrative. So we’re to believe those active in opposing abortion, despite yearly, entirely non-violent protests in our nation’s capitol and elsewhere will suddenly turn violent when, after nearly a half century, their efforts appear to be on the verge of overturning Roe? This is known as “projection.” An example:
The Madison headquarters of Wisconsin Family Action, an anti-abortion group, was reportedly set on fire late Saturday night or early Sunday morning after vandals threw what is believed to be at least one Molotov cocktail at the building.
Antifa took credit for the attack, which I’m sure CNN thinks proves conclusively it was the “far right.”
Because we all know the Sacred Heart of Mary Church in Boulder, CO, totally had a say in Justice Alito’s leaked opinion overturning Roe v. Wade.
However, it’s the second time infanticide activists targeted the church in less than a year!
Archdiocese spokesman Mark Haas told CBS4: ‘Once again a parish community showed up for a morning mass and had to walk in and witness that their parish had been targeted. I hate to say it. I was not surprised to learn of this, this morning.’
Those anti-abortion right-wingers absolutely hate Catholics. Oh yeah, this is just the kind of sane, restrained, thoughtful “protest” that is going to turn the tide for D/S/Cs.
And we must hear from our moral and intellectual betters: Hollywood actresses:
Actress Rosanna Arquette believes that abortion is such an incredibly sacred right that ‘millions of women’ are now looking to flee the country now that Roe v. Wade stands on the cusp of being potentially overturned.
‘Millions of women are figuring out how to get out of this country for good,’ the Pulp Fiction actress exclaimed. Arquette later deleted the tweet, but her pro-abortion activism continued.
Ah! That must be why Biden is flooding the nation with illegal immigrants: to replace all the women fleeing to other countries. Of course, those countries almost universally have stricter abortion laws than exist under current Roe jurisprudence, but… On to polling, beginning with Deseret.com:
A report this month from LifeNews.com outlined specifics from a recent study published in the September issue of the journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which found that 97 percent of physicians surveyed had encountered a patient who wanted an abortion, but only 14 percent of those physicians were willing to perform one.
The demographics and religious beliefs of the physician were both determining factors in the willingness to do an abortion, the survey showed.
Doctors in the South and the Midwest were less likely to perform an abortion than those in the Northeast and West.
Female obstetricians were more likely than male physicians to do an abortion. And doctors aged 26-35 and 56-65 were more likely than those between the ages of 36 and 45 to perform an abortion, according to the survey.
For religious doctors, 40.2 percent of those who identify themselves as Jewish would perform an abortion, whereas only 1.2 percent of those identified as Evangelical Protestants would.
But what of “abortion on demand?” I remain convinced only a small portion of the American populace, on both sides of the issue, are single-issue—abortion–voters. Whatever the Supreme Court decides, their numbers aren’t going to appreciably change. The Washington Examiner expands on that idea:
Polling shows that abortion is not at the highest level of voter concerns, even after the unprecedented leak of a draft decision that would end Roe. Politico conducted a rush poll after the leak, and it did not find an electorate obsessed with abortion.
The question Politico asked was: ‘Thinking about your vote, what would you say is the top set of issues on your mind when you cast your vote for federal offices such as U.S. Senate or Congress?’ The pollsters gave respondents seven choices: 1) economic issues, such as taxes, wages, and jobs; 2) security issues, such as terrorism, foreign policy, and the border; 3) healthcare issues, such as Obamacare and Medicaid; 4) seniors issues, such as Medicare and Social Security; 5) women’s issues, such as birth control, abortion, and equal pay; 6) education issues, such as school standards, class sizes, and school choice; and 7) energy issues, such as carbon emissions, renewables, and the cost of electricity and gasoline.
Women’s issues, including abortion, ranked fifth out of seven. The most important, of course, was economic issues, named by 41% of registered voters. Next was security issues, with 16%. Then came seniors issues, with 10%, and healthcare issues, with 9%. And then came women’s issues, including abortion, at 8%.
There was a gender gap, of course. Just 4% of men named women’s issues as most important, while 11% of women did — but remember, as far as abortion is concerned, that might include pro-lifers as well as pro-choicers. Among Democratic women, all pro-choice, the number rose to 18%, or nearly one in five. So perhaps a bit less than one-fifth of the female half of the Democratic electorate might be especially motivated by abortion rights come November.
Let’s keep in mind for polling on any issue, it’s vital to know the exact wording of the questions, the sample size and it’s composition, among other factors, information polling organizations virtually never provide. Powerline reports in abortion, as well as everything else, Joe Biden is a terminal drag on any ticket:
These Rasmussen numbers are grim for the Democrats. To begin with, I have been saying for a while that the polls overstate Joe Biden’s actual standing with voters. There is no way that 40% or so of voters look at the carnage of the last year and say, ‘Heck of a job, Joe!’ Many of those who claim to approve of Biden’s job performance are lying to pollsters to stick up for their beleaguered party.
You can see that in today’s numbers. While 42% of likely voters say they approve of Biden’s performance in Rasmussen’s current polling, only 28% say he should run for re-election. We like you, Joe, but please don’t stick around any longer than necessary!
Generous assessments suggest media advocacy for D/S/C candidates is worth about 15% at the polls. Take whatever Joe and Kamala’s approval rating is now and subtract that for a better take on reality. There are a variety of polls now being done, but consider D/S/C media outlets are admitting the overwhelming support for abortion they’ve always claimed just isn’t materializing, now or in November.
D/S/Cs are praising the leaker, and many who should know better are arguing he—or she—cannot be prosecuted. At The New York Post, former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy argues the Supreme Court leaker must be prosecuted, and the Court’s decision released immediately. He details the specific federal laws that apply, and his argument is compelling, legally and morally. If the Supreme Court is to retain its necessary public credibility, the justices would be wise to take McCarthy’s advice.
John Daniel Davidson at the Federalist adds an interesting essay, noting among other things, whenever the left feels they have lost control of an institution, they try to destroy it. It’s a theme I’ve often expounded upon. Because D/S/C policies are morally and intellectually perfect, they are infallible, they cannot be falsified. Therefore anyone, or any institution so much as disagreeing with them is evil and must be destroyed. By all means, take the time to take the link.
Even if Roe is overturned, abortion, in one form or another, is safe. Few, if any, states will entirely proscribe it, and as I earlier noted, even those sophisticated Europeans have abortion laws more restrictive than ours. Even in states where some would argue for outright bans, I suspect most Republicans will settle for nothing less than exemptions for rape, incest and the life and health of the mother, which is arguably a sane middle of the road approach. Besides, D/S/Cs can demonstrate their great love for women—ooops! I mean “birthing persons,” sorry!–by forming foundations to pay transportation and room and board costs for women’s passage to unlimited abortion states. Surely they’re willing to use some of those millions they use to harangue and harass normal Americans for something about which they supposedly care more than life itself? Legal Insurrection provides another angle:
[Senator Elizabeth “Fauxcohontas”] WARREN: ‘I am angry because we have reached the culmination of what Republicans have been fighting for, angling for, for decades now, and we are going to fight back!
I am angry because of who will pay the price for this. It will not be wealthy women. Wealthy women can get on an airplane, they can fly to another state. They can fly to another country. They can get the protection they need. This will fall on the poorest women in our country.’
This is, of course, standard D/S/C class warfare. A few weeks ago, they couldn’t define “woman,” now they’re once again, women’s champions–sort of.
Final Thoughts: As is standard in contemporary American politics, there will be more than enough hypocrisy to go around. It will be interesting indeed to see when, and if, the leaker is exposed. The White House, until within the last 24 hours, refused to criticize the leaker and refused to condemn those decidedly not right-wing “protestors” harassing Supreme Court justices at their homes. They still have not criticized the leaker, but have weakly wagged a finger at the “protestors.” “Weakly,” because the protestors are violating federal law, and the Administration is doing nothing to arrest or prosecute them. Apparently Biden’s handlers can read the political tea leaves when they’re too glaring to ignore.
Most Justices live in Virginia, which has laws against that sort of protest, and Governor Youngkin has said he’ll enforce them, but for the moment has not. Federal law specifically prohibits that kind of “protest” against Supreme Court Justices, but there is no chance the Administration will enforce them. Here’s 18 U.S.C 1507:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.
The intent and elements of this law could hardly be clearer. We are now learning even Supreme Court Justices are on the lower of the two tiers of American justice when D/S/Cs are in charge.
And where is the “right wing” violence about which our government and its media propaganda arm obsess? It’s apparently in the same class as the threat of “white supremacy,” about which DHS Secretary Mayorkas could not provide a single example: nonexistent.
Ultimately, if our republic is to survive intact, this Supreme Court Decision–all decisions by any court–must be solely based on The Constitution and the law. If emotion–political pressure–plays any role, we devolve to the rule of the largest, most violent mob, which at the moment is the D/S/C Party and its street thug army. Polling matters when politics decide the matter; it can’t if we want to live under the rule of law. Which will prevail remains, as this is written, unknown.
More on all of this as it develops.