Sen. Shaheen to SCOTUS: “If You Want to See a Revolution, Go Ahead, Outlaw Roe v. Wade”
“Threatening the Supreme Court has become something of a required public exhibition of faith for Democrats”
United States Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) seemed to threaten violence during a recent interview on the Dobbs v. Jackson abortion case being heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
For months, we’ve heard Democrats smear Trump supporters and other Republicans as domestic terrorists. Does threatening the Supreme Court with “revolution” qualify as an example?
Ronn Blitzer reports at FOX News:
Dem senator warns Supreme Court of ‘revolution’ if Roe v. Wade is overturned
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., issued a warning to the Supreme Court days before oral arguments in a potential landmark abortion case, claiming that a “revolution” will take place if the high court overturns existing precedent.
During a virtual event Monday featuring New Hampshire’s entire House and Senate delegation, WMUR reporter Adam Sexton had asked if public debate over abortion had “muted” due to many people in the U.S. only knowing life post-Roe v. Wade. Shaheen asserted that nothing would be muted about the reaction to a possible overturning of that decision.
“I hope the Supreme Court is listening to the people of the United States because – to go back to Adam Sexton’s question – I think if you want to see a revolution go ahead, outlaw Roe v. Wade and see what the response is of the public, particularly young people,” Shaheen said toward the end of the event. “Because I think that will not be acceptable to young women or young men.”
The Supreme Court’s current makeup – a 6-3 majority of justices appointed by Republicans – has led to speculation that they might overturn Roe v. Wade, which recognized a right to get an abortion before a fetus is viable, generally about 23 or 24 weeks into pregnancy. Wednesday’s case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, centers on a Mississippi law that clearly challenges Roe by banning abortion after 15 weeks.
Here’s the video:
.@SenatorShaheen on new abortion restrictions going into effect in N.H. & the upcoming Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case: "I think if you want to see a revolution, go ahead, outlaw Roe v. Wade and see what the response is…" #NHPolitics #WMUR pic.twitter.com/O7weoVuOSk
— Adam Sexton (@AdamSextonWMUR) November 29, 2021
Does Senator Shaheen even hear herself?
This is the Democrat way. Do as we tell you, or we will destroy this country with revolution. Rule of law has no place in a democrat run society. Dem senator warns Supreme Court of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturnedhttps://t.co/NgpzixK6Od
— footmdrph (@footmdrph) November 30, 2021
Where’s the liberal media to condemn Jeanne Shaheen for calling for a “revolution” if the Supreme Court rules to defend life? Total crickets! The far-left will do ANYTHING to expand abortion – including threatening Supreme Court justices. Truly sick people!
— Ronny Jackson (@RonnyJacksonTX) November 30, 2021
Professor Jonathan Turley reminds us that this is part of a pattern of behavior from Democrats:
Threatening the Supreme Court has become something of a required public exhibition of faith for Democrats, a demonstration that abstract notions like judicial independence will not distract from achieving political results. Sen. Richard Blumenthal previously warned the Supreme Court that, if it continued to issue conservative rulings or “chipped away at Roe v Wade” it would trigger “a seismic movement to reform the Supreme Court. It may not be expanding the Supreme Court, it may be making changes to its jurisdiction, or requiring a certain numbers of votes to strike down certain past precedents.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”
The message is clear and unambiguous: vote “correctly” or you will face personal or institutional repercussions.
Here’s Schumer’s rant from 2020:
🚨 UNHINGED → Schumer threatened conservative justices Kavanaugh & Gorsuch on the steps of the Supreme Court:
"You have released the whirlwind & you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."
Enough. This rhetoric has dangerous consequences. Where's the media outrage? pic.twitter.com/SiGNHxG0iX
— Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) March 4, 2020
These are the same people who insisted we had to get rid of Trump to restore the nation’s norms.
Featured image via Twitter video.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Methinks the Dems are hoping for the overturn of Roe because that’s the only way they keep control of congress after the midterms. A lot of young people who don’t normally bother to vote will suddenly start caring about politics if there right to have trashy promiscuous sex consequence free is threatened.
This lady knows what I’m talking about . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAtXIjBPhd0
Yeah- I’m split on them taking this up NOW because it is the only thing that could possibly cause the GOP to not take back the house/senate… well that and the GOPs own stupidity. They’ve become so feckless and useless that it’s a mixed bag.
“There is never a wrong time to do the right thing.” Lou Holtz
Or the GOP corollary: “It is never EVER the right time to do the right thing!”
Mean Tweets 2024! MAGA!
Alternately, refusing to deal with Roe would cause millions of conservative voters to sit on their hands in 2022. They’d be wondering what the use is in voting when their representatives (and justices) are spineless.
For elections to have consequences, you have to stand for something and then do something. The progressive Democrats understand this; the Pubs do not.
There ARE things worth fighting for.
I’m already wondering why we bother to vote for “conservatives” in the Republican Party when 80 of them vote for a national COVID vaccination data base. And this is the party that believes in smaller government and fiscal responsibility? How may bureaucrats is this boondoggle going to employ? https://www.theepochtimes.com/eighty-house-republicans-vote-for-more-government-spying_4137496.html
They’d still be able to have as much irresponsible sex as they wanted, they just might have to travel to a blue state in order to get their 6+-month fetuses aborted.
What’s she going to do ugly us to death.
SCOTUS would not be “outlawing” Roe vs Wade. It would merely be returning the regulation of abortion, a medical procedure, to the states that regulate basically every other medical procedure. So if abortion is as popular as they say they should have no trouble electing candidates to office and keep abortion available. No revolution needed.
We are already there. Did you miss the left coast? Teh only reason it’s not full right now is the left is on a power trip to arrest everyone.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer also declared in front of the Supreme Court “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.”
__________________________________________________________________
schumer is a tool/fool but his words are clearly more threatening than shaheen’s
what’s really disturbing is the hubris/impertinence of these dem freaks–and it seems consistent across the entire party–surprised that roberts himself(as chief)remains silent, let alone the repubs
The master of mixed metaphors “hits the nail right on the nose” again!
There are a lot of unpockmarked walls still standing around D.C.
So Senator Shaheen thinks “insurrection” is a good thing? Something to be used to pressure the Supreme Court? Well done New Hampshire. You are who you vote for.
Unfortunately, southern NH is now more like northern MA. It also happens to be where most of the population lived and has rapidly shifted from red to purple and is getting very close to being reliably blue.
Southern NH is northern MA, but without the income tax. Strange how that works out, doesn’t it?
But since many of them work in the Boston area, they still pay the income tax.
I think it’s a sign that Democrats are hitting the bottom of their popularity curve when every ultimatum they are giving you has two upsides.
A revolution of the pussy-hat brigade? We might be home in time for tea, if we were into pansy quaffs like tea.
Schumer is a lying propagandist bully preaching to his loyal
Sturmabteilung, reminiscent of 1930’s Germany. Yeah, I said that.
Although emotionally charged on both sides, abortion is clearly a 10th Amendment “States Rights” matter. Local control. Feds out.
We learn in 2 Corinthians thar you must be careful for what we pray, for the answer may not be what we expect
We learn from the ancient Greeks that the gods help those who help themselves.
Be careful what you wish for, Senator……we’re not in the mood for a fight, but if you bring one, we’re better equipped for it than your army of soy boys and girls.
Like a rumble between the Jets and the Hell’s Angels – It won’t last long, but on one side, at least, fabulously choreographed.
A revolution? Of course. It says so right there in the Declaration of Indepedence: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends – OR THE SUPREME COURT ISSUES A RULING I DISAGREE WITH – it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
And the capitalized for emphasis.
Whereas on our behalf, the counter-revolution would be to re-establish the Constitution, and its intended restrictions over the federal government. My conscience is clear.
Mean Jeanne Shaheen should be aware of this:
“Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government.” – NH Constitution, Article 10
The revolution would be voting out Republican state legislators to recover abortion rights at the state level.
The totalitarians need a trigger to “justify” martial law. She is setting it up. Antifa is financed, trained, armed, and ready. The Dems cannot allow any 2022 elections to occur and they are desperate as the CV plandemic is not the success they needed.
Abortion is a tool for the eugenics agenda which is part of the “reset.” Watch the larger context so you are not distracted by the logical reasoning and other details of this single battle in isolation of the larger battlefield.
need to know more from TX-rifraph as to ‘reset’ just listened to German Economists with this topic. I’m sincerely asking as I believe you’re correct do not be distracted, however, 84% of the population will do just that, see the headlines, listen to propaganda news.
If RvW is overturned the progressive fascists would pack the SC so they could ignore the constitution.
They already ignore it.
The left has been trying to intimidate the court on every big issue for a number of years now.
Since Roberts joined, it has worked. Every time.
A revolution? Why exactly? Overturning Roe, which every serious person agrees was a horrible decision based on tortured logic, simply puts this issue where it belongs; in the purview of the States. That’s federalism. The people of Mississippi and the people of Massachusetts can decide whether and how to address abortion in a manner consistent with the culture, history and will of their Citizens. What’s so bad about that?
Of there is nothing wrong with federalism, that’s how our system is supposed to work. Unfortunately Roe along with a few other cases of the era undercut federalism resulting in a SCOTUS acting as an unconstitutional super legislative body. The establishment and big federal govt admirers of centralized power are threatened by the loss of Roe. It isn’t about abortion for them but rather the philosophy which led to the decision being tossed.
Thank you for your insight, excellent post.
“Overturning Roe, which every serious person agrees was a horrible decision based on tortured logic,”
Think a little more deeply.
Under Roe v. Wade, no abortion can be performed, absent the consent of the one person most affected, the mother. Every single abortion is decided on an individual basis.
What happens if the Court gives that power to a government, any government? It immediately grants that government to either outlaw, or coerce abortions en masse, at its choice. Under our secular system, once a power is granted to a government, the government gets to decide, either way. So, the grant of power to ban abortion from the beginning is inherently a grant of power to decide at another time to force abortions on unwilling women.
When Roe v. Wade was first decided and this was pointed out, people yelled that “It can’t ever happen, here!!!!! Then we got to watch China decide it wanted a Once Child Policy, and babies, particularly little girls, were murdered by the many millions.
Those who think that this would not happen in this country are welcome to google the Democrat reaction to Sarah Palin’s pregnancy. There are evidently a LOT of people that would have happily murdered Trig, against her wishes.
I believe the consequence of a grant of power to either the Feds or the States would inevitably, and quickly, result in a Slaughter of the Innocents. Given the lunacy surrounding COVID policy, I think it would happen within a year.
You want a revolution, Senator? I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word.
“Sen. Shaheen to SCOTUS: “If You Want to See a Revolution, Go Ahead,..”
Now puts these words in the mouth of PDT and feel the OUTRAGE from the commies!
Bring it on lady…if you want to go that route, you can bring your baby killing tools and I’ll bring my adult killing ones. We’ll see who wins.
If SCOTUS is dumb enough to overrule Roe v. Wade, here are the foreseeable downstream consequences:
1. Hyde amendment is gone.
2. About 30 seconds after the opinion comes out, abortion bills are introduced in the House and Senate to codify Roe making it more entrenched in the law than it was before.
3. Conservative priorities will be held hostage until some version of the abortion bills are passed.
4. The next time the balance of power in the SCOTUS shifts, Heller/McDonald, Citizens United, Shelby County, and Fulton v. Philadelphia are all gone because we gave given the green light to political based reversals.
Gee, change a mere handful of words in your points and you could been just as easily arguing against SCOTUS tossing out Plessy v. Ferguson racial segregation in the 1950’s.
Bring it on.
A federal law forbidding states from banning abortion?! Under what clause of the constitution could Congress conceivably have such a power? The pro-life states would ignore such a purported law, and would resist any federal effort to enforce it.
And how dare you speak of a “green light”? As if they need one. That all the cases you name haven’t been reversed is not because the communists haven’t been given a green light, it’s because they haven’t had the numbers.
Tell me, what gave them the “green light” for imposing Roe on an unwilling nation in the first place? If you want to depoliticize the Supreme Court, you must start with reversing Roe. That is the original sin, the blatant political decision without any shred of a basis in the constitution.
And if fifty years of working through the democratic system to reverse it proves futile, tell me why we should continue to do so? Shaheen threatens a revolution? If Roe is not reversed, why don’t we have a revolution? Maybe it’s time for the pro-life states to take matters into their own hands.
Well, I think we could find some older original sins. Korematsu. WIllard. West Coast Hotel (another example of Democrat bullying working). Slaugterhouse. Munn.
Want to know what was 100% political? The Roe v Wade decision. 100% politics, zero percent law.
Yeah, this/
You have one thing right here. Yes, a federal Hyde Amendment on using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion would be done with the elimination of federal supremacy over abortion laws and regulations. But it would still be relevant in taxpayer dollars committing genocide via abortion in emerging (minority majority) nations. You’re good with that? Killing millions upon millions of non-white infants in the womb? Selling off their body parts, refusing medical treatment to infants who survive abortion, that’s all good to you? Seems a weird, racist, genocidal stance to me, but maybe that’s just me.
No, of course, the narrowly-Dem-held Congress can’t legalize abortion nation-wide. The simple fact is that there are more pro-life Dems than pro-genocide Dems in either (let alone both Congressional bodies) have room to lose in votes. This Dem Congress plus WH cannot possibly pass a pro-abortion law of the land. But keep dreaming! Nothing says your dreams of genocidal racist dominance can’t still manifest with some other Congress and WH.
No idea what your #3 means, and it’s moot, anyway. See above.
The fourth point you make is just silly. You’re a “juris doc,” right? So I don’t have to explain the embarrassing problem here.
No. If SCOTUS overturns Roe/Casey it will be because the decisions weren’t grounded in the constitution. Health decisions involving any police power are the province of the States. Minor exceptions for immigration and inoculation at the border/upon entry to the Feds don’t suffice.
Congress could pass a constitutional amendment for ratification but not a statute re abortion. As for Hyde amendment; are paying attention because the d/prog already announced their intent to cast it aside. A subsequent Congress can add it back.
None of the cases you cited were decided upon strictly political grounds. I have no idea what you are implying about past, present or future SCOTUS decisions but if don’t believe that the composition of the CT matters you are sadly mistaken. That’s why nominations are a knife fight between the parties.
You all should be able to readily determine the sources of the following:
“to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, …
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, … That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, …”
* * * * *
“We the People of the United States, … , establish …, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, …”
* * * * *
Search definitions of “posterity”. THE UNBORN HAVE RIGHTS OF THE PROGENITORS. Rights inherited from all prior generations. The Unborn are Not just “OF” the “womb holder”.
Aye, and that 12 week old foetus has the right to bear arms too. It can do that along with feeding itself, breathing and generally getting on with life after I’ve aborted it.
You don’t get to tell me what I can do with my body.
It’s not your body, it’s it’s own.
Since you are so vehemently inflexible about autonomy; ‘you don’t get to tell me what I can do with my body’, let’s carry that logic forward.
You obviously want to end child support. The phrase you can’t tell me what to do with my body obviously includes sending a payment and definitely includes employment to generate the funds to make the payment.
For that matter it also ends taxation of income.
The absolutist nature of the my body my choice argument is absurd. No one possess complete bodily autonomy. No one ever has. All of us are forced to do things we don’t want to in life.
What’s your mother’s views on abortion ? Have you convinced her she made the wrong decision when sacrificing her free will to carry and nurture you ?
@commo, sure, end child support. I absolutely support the right of men to tell a pregnant woman that if she carries to term, that’s her choice and they will not financially or otherwise support raising the child.
@sisu, her selfish decision to have a child was hers to make. I’ve come close several times providing a post-natal abortion that would correct what others sometimes tell her was the wrong choice.
A 6 month old child would have trouble with life sustaining functions also – it would die on its own in short order. A 75 year old on a heart-lung machine during a bypass operation is not doing any of that either. What about someone in a coma? Do they lose their right to life because they can’t do these things on their own?
Post natal abortion? In Alabama we call that murder.
Child support and govt assistance of every kind based on inability to support a child needs to end as well. People unwilling or unable to accept the financial and lifestyle burden of being Parents can place the child for adoption. That of course would include any contraceptive and abortion expenses as well.
Life is full of choices and those choices have consequences. Let people exercise their liberty while hearing the responsibility for their actions. That’s the difference between liberty and libertine.
Yes. These are all good practical politic points. Likewise, regardless of how I feel about the legal merits one way or the other, I’m not inclined to entirely “stand on principle” regarding how I feel about supreme court rulings and am worried about the negative impact from the points you raise. Call me jaded, but I think the supremes are merely politicians in robes with lifetime appointments largely insulated from the real-world consequences of their decisions. To expect them to function as learned objective impartial judges is unrealistic, perhaps even delusional. Even if they “do the right thing” now, I have little confidence that the court, as an institution, can be expected to do so moving forward. This entire abortion fiasco is a prime example of what a total mess these folks can make with their rulings. The correct long-term course is to reduce the impact of the supreme court, and in fact, the entire federal government, in our lives. Nothing else will work.
This is how elected officials get things done? Make threats? So now we are told justices must think about whether there will be riots before they dare to make a decision.
How does this differ from the pressure put on jurors at trials such as Derek Chauvin’s murder trial?
Is this legal?
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Evidence of fetal pain is not proof of life.
A hill the Democrats want to die on.
Sotomayor correctly noted that “fetal pain” is junk science and has been soundly refuted.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16118385/
Yeah, adult pain isn’t real either. I’ll be happy to drop by with my machete and we can prove it out.
😀 lol exactly…..
You sound exactly like the philosophers who used to argue that animals are incapable of feeling pain, and their reaction to what would be painful stimuli in humans is just mindless instinct.
/nailed it
Or like the idiot Rittenhouse prosecutor: “sometimes you just have to take a beating”.
You desperately need to believe that to salve your guilty conscience.
Refuted back in 2005 when it was unthinkable that a baby at 21 weeks could survive outside the womb and not too many years after babies were operated on without anesthesia because they “couldn’t feel pain.” .Your position is sickening. You could at least hold the position that we don;’tknow either way, seeing that a babies who are being murdered are unable to testify whether or not they feel pain.
The article you referenced is clearly “opinion”, it is not science; there is no “scientific method applied”. Read the “conclusion” – it’s a “qualified” statement of opinion. “Soundly refuted.” – The likelihood that you have capacity to comprehend what you read has been “soundly refuted.”
Notice how Sotomayor cleverly frames her argument around evidence of fetal pain not being proof of life. She doesn’t want to hang her hat on the issue of fetal pain, because any ruling that is based on that could shift a great deal as new scientific evidence develops on the topic. I would be fine with a ruling that says that state abortion laws can be guided by evidence of the aborted fetus feeling pain. She obviously doesn’t want to see where that leads.
And secondly, she frames the argument in a way to shift the burden of proof to the anti-abortion folks, a common fallacy of critical thinking, i.e. I’m automatically correct unless you prove me wrong.
“Sen. Shaheen to SCOTUS: “If You Want to See a Revolution, Go Ahead, Outlaw Roe v. Wade”
I referred Sen. Shaheen’s statement to my legal counsel of Colt, Kalashnikov, Smith & Wesson for comment. They replied, “OOOOOOOH, WE’RE SOOOOO SCAAAAAARED!”
😀
If SCOTUS repeals Roe and GOP does not retake at least one chamber in 2022, Roe will be codified before the 2024 election.
Doubtful
Its not though. That will be Dems immediate top priority.
If they don’t have. 60 vote majority in the senate, which there is a zero percent chance of, they aren’t doing it. It’s not going in under reconciliation after all.
Oh oh! Poor POC, Antifa, immigration, and CRT activists!
Packing the SC will be the main goal of the progressive fascists if RvW is overturned.
That’s their priority now.
And that “codification” will be struck down, just as the portion of the federal RFRA that applied to the states was struck down.
The only way to make the right to abortion into law across the nation is to pass an Amendment to the constitution. How can you not see this? Anything done in Congress would inevitably be symbolic since any federal law ensuring the right to any abortion would be thrown out by the courts.
I think there will be backlash if Roe is neutered by the Supremes, but your take seems a bit overblown. The only people animated by abortion are already going to vote for D’s; the majority of American voters care about the economy, jobs, inflation (not necessarily in that order). Any SCOTUS ruling will simply return abortion to the states, most voters on both sides will be fine with this.
And no, there are not enough Democrats on board with pretty much unrestricted abortion to ‘codify’ abortion via a Dem congress, Dem presidentish, into actual law. Manchin, for example, is pro-life, as are numerous other Democrats in both the House and Senate currently keeping a low profile on their rejection of radical, sleepy Joe’s agenda.
So, two takeways: SCOTUS won’t ban abortion nationwide; it can’t. Abortion goes back to the states (where it belongs), and Republicans are still going to cream Dems next year.
So the party that actively talks about revolution to overthrow the status quo is now talking about revolution due to change? Hmmmmm
Would revolution involve riots and looting and driving SUVs into parades?
Driven by soccer moms.
Johm Roberts is just a hired hand. As long as he does what he is told, his name stays out of the Ghislaine Maxwell trial and its aftermath.
Priceless.
I’m lying low too.
The courageous should not allow the line to colasp over threats of war from fascist dictators. If the lefts default is to always threatene and even resort to violence then eventually they must be squashed or we can just simply cowar, capitulate and join them. We must all decide to use every non violent option available but also resolve to stand our ground.
The main thing is to remember: stop worrying about “if we do this, they will do that,” because they will “do that” eventually even if you don’t “do this.”
How can someone be a US Senator and believe that a Supreme Court decision can be ‘outlawed?’ WTF?
We are governed by imbeciles many of whom couldn’t pass an 8th-grade government class exam.
Well, technically, some can. Many Supreme Court decisions are made on the basis of “we’re just interpreting the law and that’s not what it says; or, no authorization for this law is stated under any federal power.” (E.g., Lopez, which struck down Gun-Free School Zones Act 1.0, which is why carrying a gun onto school grounds is now “interstate commerce.”) Then the legislature goes back and passes another law that says “now we really mean it,” and the old decision is void.
Now, in the case of Roe, where the question was, “Does the constitution authorize any such law,” the legislature can’t do that because the new law is as unconstitutional as the old one.
They said the same thing about standing up to slavery, then standing up to diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism), inequity, and exclusion (DIE). Time will tell if there is support for their political congruence (“=”).
That said, There is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion, self-defense (not Capitol Hill “hero”), and still six weeks to hold a reproductive rite (i.e. wicked solution) for light, social, redistributive, and fair weather causes.
Murdering a baby because it’s inconvenient for the women is insane.
I find it incongruous that folks who are currently raising such a fuss (and with whom I totally agree) about the government’s insistence that they allow themselves to be injected with a vaccine, which all the evidence says is both safe and effective. seemingly have no problem whatsoever with the government requiring a rape victim to serve as an unwilling incubator for the spawn of her attacker.
If you believe that this is OK and that abortion is murder, then the next logical step in the progression towards unwilling women as human incubators for the State, is to declare that miscarriage is manslaughter.
First let’s deal with your argument about miscarriage, because it’s completely dishonest and shows that you are not arguing in good faith. Nobody thinks miscarriage is anything like manslaughter. Manslaughter is the killer’s fault. Miscarriage just happens. If someone dies through no fault of your own that is not manslaughter.
Next: “human incubators for the State”. Another dishonest argument. The state has nothing to do with it. Its only role is its normal one of protecting the victims of crime from the criminals. Its interest in protecting your baby from you is exactly the same as its interest in protecting you from the rapist. If it catches the rapist and can prove his guilt, you agree that it should punish him. So why should it not punish you, for your much greater crime against the baby (who by the way is your child, not just “the spawn of her attacker”)?
How the baby got there is irrelevant. It’s a baby now, and you have no right to kill it. You have no right to kill someone just because of who his parents were. That’s nazism.
Now this “unwilling incubator” business. Under normal circumstances, if someone is innocently in your house, you have the right to decide you don’t want him there any more, and tell him to leave. If he refuses, you may use reasonable force to remove him. But you may not use deadly force, which means if there’s a blizzard outside and expelling him will mean his death you may not remove him, and must serve as an unwilling host until he can safely leave. That’s how it is, and you can’t change it just because you don’t like it. If you throw the bum out into the snow and he dies, we will convict you of murder and we will hang you.
Milhouse,
Thanks for your response. I have no hope that I will change your beliefs about this issue one bit. About “miscarriage as manslaughter,” I don’t really believe that, nor would I expect anyone to do so. But then again I don’t share your belief that pre-viable fetuses are people.
“Miscarriage just happens” is not always true. What about an expectant mother whose excesses result in hitting a tree while driving drunk as well as directly in the miscarriage of an otherwise healthy fetus? Does the fetus have legal protection against murderers, but not against depraved indifference man-slaughterers or drunk drivers? I detect a logical conundrum. If the fetus is alive, which other legal protections does it not get now that we’ve established that it’s legally OK to act in such a way as to result in miscarriage?
It all comes down to terminology. You call a blastula a baby. I call it a bunch of cells.
A rape victim is not the mother of the rapist’s spawn. Once she is pregnant with his fetus, to deny her relief is wrong. It is not her child unless she chooses to make it her child. She is the victim of a violent crime. To require her under penalty of law to serve as her rapist’s tool as she incubates the growing evidence of his crime and to demand that she not rid herself of the product of forced illegal violent insemination, is wrong, to me anyway, but I’m a guy. It’s never going to happen to me.
Re the blizzard analogy, remember, you say it’s a baby. I don’t.
Millhouse is being kind to you with his reasoned and detailed response. My observation is that you are spouting a lot of over-the-top hyperbole that is hard to take seriously. Both sides seem to do this, and it’s why ab0rtion debates seem to always go completely off the rails.
I do not beg for intellectual quarter from either you or Milhouse. I completely understand the point of view of those who believe that life begins at conception. I just disagree with it.
As for me, I do not believe that the State has the right to require a woman to bear anyone’s baby for any period of time if she does not wish to do so. That you apparently do is what I find strange. What about minor violent rape victims? The State should make say, a fourteen year old rape victim, carry a rapist’s spawn for nine months, potentially endangering her own health in the process? I get it. I know that you believe that it’s the lesser of two evils.
I just don’t, and, I don’t believe that those who do are demonic. I believe that they have misjudged the extent to which their beliefs overrule the beliefs of the unfortunate women who the State wants to turn into human livestock.
“Because I think that will not be acceptable to young women or young men.”
Predatory males will definitely be upset.
Dunno, I don’t see it. It’s not like they have any say in the abortion decision anymore. If she wants to hook him, he’s toast either way.
She is smart enough to know it would be left to the states to decide. This is just another threat of violence from the left on a tantrum.
Is this “person” really stupid enough to want to pick a fight with the people who own most of the 450 million firearms in this country?
Yes. As Dem rep Fang-banger Swalwell reminded us, the feds have nukes.
But all the fighting will take place in blue territory.
Oops.
The Democrats in the 1970s stood for abortion amnesty snd acid Now they are all worshiping the false gods of systematic racism gender and climate change
For the Sake of our Democracy
Why attempt to win over voters with better institutions and practices, better ideas and arguments, runs the Democrat mindset, when you can keep with the party’s tradition and cheat, lie, steal, force, and deceive your way into power, and stay there?
Sen Shehan, a democrat from New Hampshire, is exercising here the “force” option in her kind of “Go ahead, I dare you, Justices . . . and watch how that turns out for you and our cities, and the country’s so beloved founding documents”.
No different, in tenor and tone, from the ol’ gangsta line of the 30s, which pretty much runs, “It’s really a lovely business you have here, to provide for your beautiful family and all. So, it’d be a sad, terrible shame for anything bad to happen to either one, or both. Don’t you think?
Jeanne Shaheen is no more “threatening the Supreme Court” than the Bozos who attended “Redneck Woodstock” on Jan 6th were staging an insurrection. She’s right. People are gonna be pissed.
Hey, since l’esprit and general will of The French Revolution is in the back of our minds, as Marie herself would say, let ’em eat cake: Remind them, first, the Constitution, yeah it’s a bitch; and second, to institute, if they must and can, such apparently critical and vital preborn-to-born-baby-murdering legislation in their own backyards (or moral backwoods) — their own states! It’s called the Tenth Amendment, anarchists, in case you care to act civilly and get along with other-respecting others, let alone the unborn-to-born helpless innocent.
As to whether Sen Shaheen is threatening the USSC with her term “revolution,” I think it better for all concerned that she tell us what the f*** she means by the term, rather than us sitting around and inferring this or that in a manipulated, onanistic ceremony.
Why are we reacting to — rather than demanding clarity, accountability, and moral erection from — her? It would be far easier and less of a civic burden on us if we had a real press doing their historic, Constitution-protected job, but here we are.
I’m not sure what part of what I wrote you disagree with. This much I know, GatorGuy; if you’re not from New Hampshire, Jeanne Shaheen doesn’t owe you jack shit.
Last time I looked, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether or not life begins at conception. I do not believe so, but I completely respect your right to believe it. For me, I’ll start thinking about abortion as murder just as soon as you start thinking of miscarriage as manslaughter.
I’ll start thinking of miscarriage as manslaughter just as soon as you starting thinking of death by organ failure as manslaughter.
Your argument is ridiculous on its face. Find a new one.
you’re right! Shaheen owes me not one thing, but she does owe it to the people of the United States not to break the oath she took upon assuming office.
So then, solitary in a DC jail for both?
Your terms are acceptable.
This new pattern of Congress and POTUS threatening SCOTUS is a very concerning trend. The whole point of SCOTUS is to be a check and balance against tyranny from the White House or Congress.
These threats prove that Democrats care very little about the rule of law, the Constitution or even the will of the people being different in different states.
All the more reason that we need strong conservative (not necessarily GOP) leaders who are willing to do the right thing.
If overturning Roe is the “balloon going up” for Dems (as if Summer 2020 wasn’t that already), I say let them come. It takes a real Einstein to start or join an actual revolution pitting a hundred thousand REALLY devoted baby killers against 100M gun owners. It would be ugly and would change the timbre of the American civilization for at least 2 generations. But it would end the slaughter the way the Civil War ended slavery and the concept of secession.
And it would settle it in the only way Democrats ever accept — under the legal principle of potestatem facit rectum.
(“Might makes right.” Get your mind out of the gutter.)
Young people are having less sex, and young men are marrying less. The young seem disillusioned with the current state of relationships, and a lot of where society is. I don’t know that overturning Roe is that big for the younger crowd. Young people are alive because their mothers gave birth.
It isn’t a religious issue either, as Sotomyer said. I know atheists that are pro life, as well as Democrats for Life. You just never hear about them in the press, but i have heard from them on podcasts such as Issues, etc.
These people are so dumb. They don’t recognize the consequences of their actions. Commiecrats have been aborting their fetuses for the past 50 years.Its got so bad they have to flood the country with worthless illegals to fill their ranks.
Many American men will watch the “Harpy Revolution” and laugh out loud at how much easier it will be for them to find good women to marry and have children with, because they can simply say “So long and thanks for all the fish!” to the abortion-militant ones.
In time, the same gals will sing “Where Have All the Cowboys Gone?” in bitterness while the men enjoy life with the women who will marry them.
Shaheed can threaten “revolution” all she wants. It will be “Lysistrata” -deflated.
It seems like a funny right found in the constitution that gives only one group of people that could ever have that right, that right. The right to free speech, arms, etc. apply to all. In order to exercise the right to abortion, you have to be a woman who is pregnant. So not even all women have that right. Now that I’m older, and my kid isn’t the child of my dreams (lets say for argument), or my finances are crap, or the dad left, I can’t get rid of him. Women do not have the opposite right to a baby. Abortion is the only time you can get rid of people permanently that are inconvieinient.
Seems to be a historically off-target observation, given that the constitution originally denied certain rights to nonwhites, females, and non-property-owners; put age limits on offices; and generally was not nearly as egalitarian as it has since become.
This loudmouth should have never been in that office. The election was separated by only a 1000 votes when she ran against Kelly Ayotte. For some reason no recount was made. Yet later in the year it was found that many of the same day registration votes should have been voided as they failed to complete the process to vote in the election by proving residency.
All of that is true, but Kelly Ayotte was no bargain albeit slightly better than this Communist Democrat Loser Shaheen. Ayotte didn’t support our choice for President after watching her and the rest of the Republicans in Congress give O’Dinglebarry everything that he wanted as if Nasty Nanzi and Dirty Harry were still running Congress. THEY DID NOTHING AND ALL THEIR PROMISES PROVED EMPTY. Their failures prompted American Patrios to look for an Outsider instead of one of the other 16 Professional Politicians, e.g., Jeb Bush, Lindsey Grahamnesty.
LOL. “outlaw”. Ha.
No understanding of the American architecture of government, at all. None.
Good thing Shaheen is a Democrat, if she had been a Republican there would have been 45 ethics committee referrals for threatening the members of the Supreme Court. It never ceases to amaze me the double standard that is allowed in the District of Corruption. Law enforcement should march into the Senate, cuff her and haul her off to be charged with threats against government officials. That is exactly what would have happened had a Republican given similar criticism to Sotamayor’s one-sided, half-baked comments disguised as “questions”.
Predicting a revolution really isn’t the same thing as threatening one. I don’t think that she is issuing a threat, but rather a warning or prediction on what she expects to happen.
Dear Ms Shaheen: I’d say that we are near ready for a revolution anyhow given the unconstitutional and illegal Vaccine Mandates. May as well get everything settled once and for all, along with cleaning out all of the Communist Democrats and their millions of Deep State unelected bureaucrats that have taken over our Federal Government.