Lion of the Blogosphere

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

Link to decision.

The Court majority is correct, assuming that we allow that abortion is a constitutionally protected right upon which states cannot place an undue burden. We all know that the purpose of the Texas laws was to make it almost impossible for women to get abortions while pretending to just be safety regulations. The justices on the Court all went to Ivy League law schools, they aren’t so stupid to be fooled by that.

Thomas is right that the Court is going out of its way to protect abortion rights when they would ignore most other stupid state regulations, but since the anti-abortion people are going out of their way to try to outlaw abortions on the sneak, I think it it’s appropriate for the Court to put the kibosh on that.

It’s notable that this was a 5-3 decision (with Kennedy being int he majority), so even if Scalia were still alive, this decision would have run the same way.

When can the anti-abortion people give up on this issue and move on? Maybe after Hillary get’s elected president, and she packs the court with more ultra-liberals, they will finally give up? And since a lot of anti-abortion conservatives seem to hate Trump so much they’d rather see Hillary win, does that mean they are ready to give up?

* * *

The above analysis has nothing to do with whether the original Roe v Wade decision made constitutional sense, or whether the Court back then just made up a bunch of crap legal “reasoning” because they thought abortion rights were too important to not make it a constitutional right.

Once you accept stare decisis with respect to Roe v. Wade and other previous abortion cases, then it’s obvious that Texas was trying to prohibit abortion on the sneak in violation of women’s right to have an abortion under the existing constitutional case law.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

June 27, 2016 at 10:36 am

Posted in Law

100 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. You have any kids, Lion? Ever father a baby? Ever put your hand on a woman’s belly and feel the kick? Placed your head on her belly? Sometimes it takes some age on a male to make him understand such things. We’re moving to a society in which the LEFT will take glee in killing a child being delivered. It already takes glee in saying a baby that is viable outside the womb is STILL not human. Ideas like that? I am not sure if they are the result of the dehumanization we see in our country (which lead to things like human automatons being quite ok with being rules by authoritarians) or if they are the cause of such proclivities.


    June 27, 2016 at 10:58 am

    • Loads of women with children are pro-choice. You are talking nonsense.

      • Women are selectively non-sociopathic. He is not talking nonsense.


        June 27, 2016 at 11:35 am

      • And lots of women who have had abortions later regret them.

        David Pinsen

        June 28, 2016 at 2:43 am

      • The number who have is exaggerated by the right-to-life movement. Furthermore, fewer women would regret their abortions were it not for the right-to-life movement in the first place calling them murderers.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 28, 2016 at 2:33 pm

      • The number who have is exaggerated by the right-to-life movement. Furthermore, fewer women would regret their abortions were it not for the right-to-life movement in the first place calling them murderers.

        That’s not really it. There are two factors that drive regret:

        1) When women later get pregnant with a baby they want to keep. They don’t think of it as a clump of cells early on.

        2) When women who’ve had abortions young end up trying to settle down late and being unable to have kids.

        David Pinsen

        June 29, 2016 at 12:49 am

    • Note that Greg expresses concern that the stigma will go away. The stigma is not going to go away. Proles will continue to not worry too much about the prevailing taboos, while elite propaganda will continue to spoon-feed hamster-approved rationales to the middle class like “he was abusive, you see…!” “I was really poor in college and was considering going on food stamps.”

      This will never be a SWPL-approved lifestyle choice. It will always have to be hamstered into a sympathy play.


      June 27, 2016 at 12:47 pm

    • Goodness, what a rational response. Not pissy and hormonal AT ALL. No one could possibly read it and wonder if you are to be trusted with the franchise.


      June 27, 2016 at 12:48 pm

    • Abortion is nasty, but there’s no question having it be legal in the late 20th and early 21st century in America makes the world better, and probably results in fewer early deaths, long term. It restrains growth in the underclass and breeds unfeminine women out of the gene pool of the middle and upper middle class.

      Economic Sophisms

      June 27, 2016 at 3:56 pm

    • You have any kids, Lion? Ever father a baby?

      100 percent. Never, ever, ever can I understand actual parents who are pro-abortion. When you go in for that prenatal ultrasound, and SEE your baby on the screen, and still believe in murdering these things? The proof of original sin, right there.

      Samson J.

      June 27, 2016 at 6:06 pm

      • Are you Christian? Only Christians are pro-life.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 27, 2016 at 6:45 pm

      • Says who? Fetus is a living thing weather Christian or not. Man, you keep making these categorical statments: only Christians are pro life, only orthodox Jews have day schools. Where you get all here ideas?

        Incidentally, imagine a zoo wanting to abort a lion. I can just see the whole of liberal, feminist press and Internet losing it. I’m sure they would find a a hundred ways not to abort that lion.


        June 27, 2016 at 8:16 pm

      • The idea that only Christians are pro-life is patently untrue. It just happens to be the largest and most active religious group in the US.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        June 27, 2016 at 10:07 pm

      • Yakov,

        That’s because there aren’t nearly eight billion lions in the world. Were they a little more numerous, an abortion here and there might not be so frowned upon.


        June 27, 2016 at 11:49 pm

      • OK, so let’s say that lion is rare, but like who needs tons of lions? I mean where all these lions are gonna go? Some people are gonna get eaten, so maybe it’s OK to abort a lion, I would think. But at any rate, the dogs and the cats aren’t rare, but they find it in their hearts to spend thousands of dollars on each one of these creatures. So I think even if we had a surplus of lions that would still lionize them.


        June 28, 2016 at 2:51 pm

      • Samson — I’m married and have children. If it was going to be born with a serious disease, deformity, down’s syndrome, etc we would absolutely abort. I’ve seen the strain that puts on a family emotionally and financially. It’s much better to cut your losses and invest the time, energy and resources in healthy children. I’m sure you think that cold. Perhaps. But it’s also wise.

        Regardless, my main reason for supporting access is not to abort my children. If we had the need we could always fly to another country to have it done. Rather I oppose banning abortion so that poor people can have access, too. In fact, I think government should provide free access to poor people who want it.


        June 28, 2016 at 5:47 pm

    • If you’re for the expansion of the welfare state I could at least respect your perspective.

      Are you?

      Do you believe in supporting these kids once they’re beyond just being a few cells?

      Also abortions rarely happen in the beyond the first trimester, far before any ‘kick’.


      June 27, 2016 at 10:21 pm

  2. “The justices on the Court all went to Ivy League law schools, they aren’t so stupid to be fooled by that.”

    If Justices Roberts, Alito, and Thomas weren’t fooled (I’m sure they weren’t), then their votes to impede abortions were pure political activism, just as last week the four liberal justices voted to give Obama dictatorial, unconstitutional powers to grant amnesty to illegals. This gang of eight justices on the Supreme Court evince utter contempt for the Rule of Law.

    Mark Caplan

    June 27, 2016 at 10:59 am

    • They were fooled by the crazy logic of Roe vs Wade itself which is stupider than anything else in this case. I don’t know how anyone can think that the Supreme Court isn’t just making it up as they go along.


      June 27, 2016 at 12:54 pm

      • Harry Blackmun (Harvard) pretty much invented the right to an abortion out of whole cloth.

        You should read the dissent by Whizzer White (Yale). It is beautiful.


        June 28, 2016 at 2:59 am

      • Harry Blackmun (Harvard) pretty much invented the right to an abortion out of whole cloth.

        You should read the dissent by Whizzer White (Yale). It is beautiful.

        Mickey Kaus (Harvard) wrote once that it would have made more sense to rely on the equal protection clause: to note that child birth is inherently risky and abortion should be legal so pregnant women can elect to protect themselves from it.

        Roe v. Wade, as it stands (and the subsequent decision I don’t feel like looking up now that watered down “health” to legalize abortion-on-demand) contributed to the decline in standing of the law and the Constitution in this country, by all except spergy Constitutional conservatives.

        The Constitution is effectively meaningless. It means whatever a majority of SCOTUS Justices say it means. Which means winning the White House is crucial, because the POTUS nominates SCOTUS Justices. But the spergy Cons have their panties in a bunch about Trump. It’s absolutely nuts.

        David Pinsen

        June 30, 2016 at 12:53 am

  3. The more libertarian minded people have pointed out that abortion seems to reverse the traditional positions. You get the establishment left types suddenly against regulations, and the establishment right snarking that hey, the business can handle a little regulation, no biggie.

    That said, the establishment right needs to stop trying to win by stealth once they lose the arguments. And not just in abortion. If they’re agin’ public education, sped mandates, no religion in schools etc., then they need to say so and stand up for their beliefs, not start charters to sneakily skirt regulations. If they think transport is over regulated, then they need to say so, not give companies like Uber a special dispensation to break the labor laws. If they’re against welfare, they need to say so, not bring in millions of foreigners, drive people out of the market, and destroy the social fabric. And if the anti abortion position is as popular as they say, then they need to state their cases, not sneakily try to regulate abortion out of existence.


    June 27, 2016 at 11:00 am

    • It’s not really a reversal.

      Left = Promotes social disorder, the destruction of mores and civilization.
      Right = Promotes social order, establishment of mores and culture.

      In this case it just happens to be that letting women’s emotion-driven desires run amuck. In other places it’s about shutting down the right of civilized peoples to protect themselves from invaders, or squashing culture-building enterprises.

      Panther of the Blogocube

      June 27, 2016 at 3:25 pm

      • Goodness, can’t imagine why y’all lost. Enjoy the Retardistan your policies are going to cause.

        Also, let me type this slowly for the morons here:



        June 27, 2016 at 5:07 pm

      • Jesse– Panther was right about everything he said. Now I agree with you that banning abortion would result in “Retardistan”. However, liberal policies have done more to promote Retardistan than conservative ones. Liberals push women to work which decreases fertility among the middle and upper middle class. Liberals push welfare that increases fertility among the poor. Liberals have even opposed policies that would reduce fertility among the poor such as requiring birth control as a requirement for welfare. Last but not least, liberals push 3rd world immigration.

        So don’t pretend most liberals support abortion in order to prevent “Retardistan”. Because that’s certainly not the reason most give for doing so. No. Liberals hold their positions for the same reason most people do — values and beliefs rooted in emotion rather than evidence and reason. Only after the fact do you use reason to try to justify them. The real reason you support abortion is because you want the option in case you get knocked playing the whore.


        June 28, 2016 at 5:21 pm

      • And if you are a father, you want the option for your daughter because you don’t want your daughter to become a single mother, which is the epitome of low class.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        June 29, 2016 at 9:16 am

      • Liberalism has been a disaster for minorities in our country. Black illegitimacy went from < 20% in the 1950s to ~ 75% today. The whole liberal ideology has impoverished their community and robbed them of wealth, dignity, and culture. They may have been the first, but they won't be the last. Just a canary in the coal mine for the rest of a degenerate set of values that is destroying the West across all demographics.

        Funny to be hearing about a 'retardistan' since that's literally the state of affairs of our current Idiocracy.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        June 28, 2016 at 7:13 pm

      • It’s the ‘epitome of low class’ because smart people are usually more responsible. Plus, smart people can afford to fly somewhere legal. The real concern for most wealthy fathers who support access would be reducing illegitimacy among poor people. I certainly haven’t polled my acquaintances on the question. But that’s what I’d expect most to say if they were being honest.


        June 29, 2016 at 11:18 am

      • blacks are incapable of sustaining a vibrant community. Vibrant as in functional, civic minded, and entrepreneurial.

        It turns out that Detroit was not destroyed by liberal ideologies, but blacks who had everything they could get their hands on, yet they lacked the competence to sustain a city, founded by Whites.


        June 30, 2016 at 4:59 pm

      • From that blog: Why are the states of Vermont, Maine, and Oregon such stellar places to live although they are arguably the most liberal left wing pro-socialist regions in America? Because all of those places have predominantly White populations.

        So yes, Jesse, and other readers on this blog, should know, that liberal policies alone, do not ruin civilization.


        June 30, 2016 at 5:03 pm

      • Now, proles can be destructive, but the ultimate demolition derby, without any machinery of a deconstruction crew, comes from a certain demographic:

        And yes, HR Geiger’s fictional Alien or Xenomorph, eerily resembles the derelict behavior of another parasitic group in reality. Although, Africans appear to be in their natural primitive state, in their home continent, without the man-made erections of Europeans.


        June 30, 2016 at 7:44 pm

      • JS — That didn’t happen until after the rise of liberals. Liberal policies exacerbate the worst tendencies of the lower classes.


        June 30, 2016 at 8:19 pm

  4. The root problem has always been saying that abortion is a constitutional right. Trump will win and that will change.

    Andrew E.

    June 27, 2016 at 11:19 am

  5. Well considering that the “right” to an abortion was invented out of whole cloth, all this jurisprudence is just smoke and mirrors. But we’ve long since given up even pretending to care about that silly old white man’s Constitution.

    In any event, I’m 100% in favor of abortion so I’ll happily put aside Muh Constitushun for this particular case, but without looking into any specifics I’m pretty sure the decision totally violates the now quaint idea of states’ rights. But then, virtually every law and regulation that comes out of D.C. is a constitutional violation, so whatever. I just wonder how long we’ll even keep up the pretense of the Constitution, or if a Hillary Presidency will overtly claim it no longer applies. That’s going to happen sooner or later.


    June 27, 2016 at 11:25 am

    • “I’m pretty sure the decision totally violates the now quaint idea of states’ rights.”

      That states can’t outlaw abortion was decided in 1973. This decision adds nothing new against states’ rights.

      • “That states can’t outlaw abortion was decided in 1973. This decision adds nothing new against states’ rights.”

        That entire concept — that the Court can strike down state laws when that power is not specifically given to them — is anti-Constitutional. But it’s a pointless argument since nobody cares anymore about any of this. The Constitution is a fig leaf.


        June 27, 2016 at 11:55 am

      • The Court can strike down state laws because the Court must rule that whenever a law contradicts Constitutional law, it is the Constitutional law that must prevail. The problem is an overly expansive view of what the Constitution actually says.


        June 27, 2016 at 3:03 pm

      • Judicial review isn’t in the constitution but nor is any other method of guaranteeing that the constitution is actually followed. The constitution itself is a mess and doesn’t contain answer about everything let alone the correct answers. It really makes people look sill when they worship it and act as though everything would work out it it were just blindly followed.


        June 27, 2016 at 3:45 pm

      • “The problem is an overly expansive view of what the Constitution actually says.”

        Also a willingness to contradict the actual words of the Constitution (e.g 10th Amendment), with MadLibs fill-in-the-blanks version that Liberals prefer.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        June 27, 2016 at 6:35 pm

  6. Conservatives are utter vermin.

    Otis the Sweaty

    June 27, 2016 at 11:42 am

    • No, we are winged, Wizard-headed, peacock-tailed giraffes.


      June 27, 2016 at 1:11 pm

    • On the 20 year anniversary of Roe, Hendrick Herzberg, a well-known Harvard educated liberal (I believe he’s been managing editor of The New Yorker for several years) wrote a piece in The New Republic acknowledging that the opinion was flat stupid as a strict matter of constitutional interpretation.


      June 27, 2016 at 1:12 pm

      • Legal PERSONS have civil rights under the Constitution. A person has, as a minimum, a mind. Take this definition from 1795: PERSONS: “We hardly consider children as persons, because that term gives us the idea of reason and reflection” (Lindley Murray’s English Grammar).

        There is no indisputable precise moment that a fetus or infant becomes a legal PERSON (with “person” as defined above). Conservative Catholics and Evangelicals go according to their religious doctrine or papal pronouncement. However, America is not a theocracy. Bishops don’t have veto power over the Supreme Court or Congress.

        Congress, but ultimately the Supreme Court, has to make the call of when to consider a fetus or infant a legal person. Because of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the decision has to be based on science and judicial reasoning, not divine revelation.

        We know for sure that a bundle of generalized cells with no specialized brain cells is not a person (as defined above). We know that a five-year-old can engage in rudimentary reasoning and reflection, so would definitely be a person. But there will always be an ill-defined gray zone of precisely when personhood comes into existence.

        Mark Caplan

        June 27, 2016 at 9:22 pm

      • Personally I favor the implementation of a ritual test, like the Gom Jabbar in Dune, or earned citizenship ala Heinlein’s Starship Troopers.

        However the fact of the matter is that if a woman were pregnant and assaulted on the street, causing her to miscarry, she would want the assaulter punished in some way, whether as a murderer or otherwise charged with some crime above and beyond a basic assault.
        In an abortion case she herself is the one inflicting the violence. We recognize that destroying this life or potential human is worthy of punishment… except when the one doing it is carrying a pussy pass.

        Panther of the Blogocube

        June 28, 2016 at 6:53 pm

      • This bunch of nogoodniks is supposed to have the power to declare an open season on fetuses now? Man, having standing as a person is a legal construct, it doesn’t determine weather you exist or not! Just read over the text you are quoting – it’s in there. Think, a cat doesn’t have the ability for reason and reflection, but go hang a cat and tell the cops that it doesn’t exist, or has no standing as a person. Think it’s gonna fly? They’ll put you away in Rikers. So if you can’t hang a cat, why can you abort a kid? This is so elementary that I don’t know why I’m even writing all this.


        June 28, 2016 at 9:09 pm

      • Mark Caplan,

        “Legal PERSONS have civil rights under the Constitution. A person has, as a minimum, a mind. Take this definition from 1795: PERSONS: “We hardly consider children as persons, because that term gives us the idea of reason and reflection” (Lindley Murray’s English Grammar).”

        The problem is that “unpersonhood” is a stage in the life of every human being. Every adult that presumably gains reason and reflection goes through the stage of childhood. There is nothing about the definition of persons in 1795 that would allow the killing of children.

        Regardless of how useful abortion is in culling democrats, the reality is that it is an argument conceived in infamy because ultimately it was intended to attack, destroy and weaken white people.


        June 29, 2016 at 11:11 am

      • Abortions are had disproportionately by non-Asian minorities. How does that “weaken white people”?

      • Lion,

        “Abortions are had disproportionately by non-Asian minorities. How does that “weaken white people”?”

        That was the intent of the law, even though the result had unintended consequences.


        June 29, 2016 at 8:59 pm

    • Liberals love regulations that take money and life from others in the name of love.


      June 27, 2016 at 1:37 pm

    • Sweaty — If you’re neither liberal nor conservative then what are you?


      June 27, 2016 at 3:50 pm

      • A reactionary.

        I hate liberals, but I hate conservatives more. Conservatives have ruined America.

        Otis the Sweaty

        June 27, 2016 at 8:07 pm

      • Sweaty — How have conservatives ruined America?


        June 28, 2016 at 4:38 pm

      • Cons ruined America in the sense that they are cowards and hypocrites. Liberals make no qualms about hating proles.


        June 29, 2016 at 9:31 am

      • JS — I was asking Sweaty and still interested in his reply. But, since you answered, could you be more specific? Examples?


        June 29, 2016 at 11:22 am

      • destructure: for 50 years now non whites have been invading our Holy Soil. What have Conservatives done in that time: rant about “muh abortions” and “muh values” while our country was being stolen from us by immigrant trash. All the while persecuting and hounding out those who dared to speak out about the immigrant invasion.

        And today they continue to cause problems. Hopefully they will be purged from the Republican party soon and will then vanish from history. Thankfully our Savior, Trump has come along, otherwise the conservatives would have dragged us all to destruction.

        Otis the Sweaty

        June 30, 2016 at 8:52 pm

      • Most conservatives support Trump and oppose immigration. That’s why Trump won the nomination. That’s not to say you can talk like an extremist around them. Even if they agree with your point, conservatives are put off by extremism. Most people are. For example, consider Westboro’s campaign against homosexuals. Even people who agree with their position don’t like them because they’re nuts.

        A few things to consider…

        1 The MSM has been dominated by the left for decades. The power of the press to turn elections as well as ruin businesses, careers and lives is very real.

        2 Political donations are dominated by business interests not ideology. Regardless of what the public wants, business interests are the ones with the money.

        3 Politics is the art of the possible. Politicians craft coalitions in order to win. Conservatives are only one faction of the GOP coalition. Other factions include the previously mentioned business interests, RINOS, NeoCons, TruCons, etc. Most conservatives wouldn’t consider those other factions real conservatives even though they claim to be.

        When you criticize conservatives you’re criticizing the wrong faction. Or, at least, painting with too broad a brush. You should be criticizing those factions who are NOT conservative i.e. business interests, RINOS, NeoCons, TruCons, etc. But you’re mistaken if you think we can purge those other factions and win. That’s the reality whether you like it or not. Rather, we need to emasculate them and bring them to heel.

        Trump is the first person I’ve seen in my lifetime to flout the media and business interests and remain standing. He’s done this by tapping into a new set of issues and crafting a new coalition. Naturally, some of the old coalition are furious because it threatens their power and agenda. So they’re lashing out. In fact, some RINOS have left the GOP because of it. Some NeoCons from Bush’s administration have even recently endorsed Hillary. And, of course, the TruCons are threatening to boycott Trump and leave the party as well.

        I’m as angry with their attempts to undermine Trump as you are. But they’re also doing us a favor. By leaving the GOP they’re removing their influence from it. They’re surrendering. They may be surrendering with a chip on their shoulders. But they’re surrendering nonetheless. And their leaving makes my heart sing. It tells me that Trump is the real deal and absolutely intends to end the trade deficits and illegal immigration. But Trump has to win. Otherwise, they’ll all be back in force.


        July 1, 2016 at 10:55 am

  7. Those who genuinely believe abortion is murder are never going to “give up and move on”. Nor should they.

    Why don’t you ask liberals when they are going to give up and move on about gun control?


    June 27, 2016 at 2:04 pm

    • > Those who genuinely believe abortion is murder are never going to “give up and move on”. Nor should they.

      That doesn’t make any sense. Does Canada have laws against Mexicans murdering people in Mexico? No, because it is none of their business. Should pro-lifers have laws against pro-choicers killing unborn pro-choicers? No, again it is none of their business.


      June 27, 2016 at 3:42 pm

      • Should a state have laws saying a husband can’t murder his wife or vice versa? No, it’s none of the state’s business.

        Andrew E.

        June 27, 2016 at 5:00 pm

      • Abortion kills Americans in America. That is every Americans business. Is it “not your business” if a liberal kills his 5 year old child? No, it absolutely is your business.


        June 27, 2016 at 11:59 pm

      • “Should pro-lifers have laws against pro-choicers killing unborn pro-choicers?”

        What is an “unborn pro-choicer”?


        June 28, 2016 at 4:46 am

  8. It seems to me that gun regulations are also a “first get a foot in the door” sneak attack on gun rights. The NRA understands this, and that’s why they fight over everything. The left understands it too, thus tries for pointless laws about banning shoulder straps and pistol grips. The left won’t talk publicly about their ultimate goal of course.

    June 27, 2016 at 2:27 pm

    • That really is the issue. Putting aside the question of whether abortion is a constitutional right, the right to bear arms certainly is, but it’s subject to regulation. So I’m not sure why, just because Texas was trying to be sneaky in putting the kabosh on abortion, that the court (if we actually took it’s judgments seriously) should have found that those regulations unconstitutional. By that logic, many laws regulating guns would be as well. Kermit Gosnell ran a clinic that was totally devoid of regulations. It was like a libertarian paradise.

      Mike Street Station

      June 27, 2016 at 5:28 pm

    • Couldn’t agree more, Steve. They talk about “weapons of war” on the streets and “common sense” measures to curb gun violence, but they really want a ban on almost all firearms.

      We can’t afford to give up one inch on gun control. Truth be told, I don’t own an AR or any other semi-auto assault rifle, nor do I have a desire to. I wouldn’t give a damn if they all disappeared. However, liberals won’t be appeased if conservatives give in and agree to ban them. It is more likely that liberals, sensing weakness and opportunity, will be emboldened to pursue even more restrictions, with each new victory whetting their appetites for the next.

      Before you knew it, the resulting gun control snowball would result in laws just as restrictive as those in Australia.


      June 28, 2016 at 12:10 am

  9. I don’t know if this is specifically true, but Rod Dreher makes this statement about the proposed law.

    “The Texas law only required that abortion clinics be regulated like other outpatient centers — hardly an unreasonable restriction.”

    If it is true, then this whole discussion is simply inaccurate. Establishing regulations consistent with the regulation in place in other, comparable medical facilities is hardly (shouldn’t be) unconstitutional. And arguing about the motivations of the Texas Legislature (presumably anti-abortion) is irrelevant.

    If it is true, then the Supreme Court isn’t merely protecting abortion rights: they are literally altering medical safety requirements to make abortions easier. It is then not a case where the constitutional right to abortion is being judicated: it is a case where the Justices are bending the law and medicine to expand abortion access.



    June 27, 2016 at 3:01 pm

  10. I am totally pro-abortion rights. But I would have preferred there is no Roe V Wade and each state decided the abortion decision for themselves. NYS and California can have late-term abortions and Louisiana can have only 1st trimester abortions. But I don’t think over-turning Roe is worth it. For intents and purposes anti-Roe is considered anti-abortion and most Americans don’t agree with that position.


    June 27, 2016 at 3:06 pm

  11. If abortion is going to remain legal (and it will) then compulsory use of Norplant should be required for any woman of child bearing age who receives any kind public assistance.

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    June 27, 2016 at 3:11 pm

    • Will never happen because racist — are you trying to commit genocide against blacks or something?

      However, taking money away from Whites at gunpoint (via taxation) and giving it to shiftless, worthless blacks so that responsible Whites can’t afford more children is “The Good Genocide” ~ Barack Hussein Obama.


      June 27, 2016 at 6:40 pm

  12. Abortions should be rare and unusual so they have more meaning.


    June 27, 2016 at 3:14 pm

  13. While I agree that abortion is murder, I also understand that most abortions are committed by Democrats, so I don’t really care. Texas should have more abortion clinics, preferably located among democrats as much as possible. Abortion and immigration restriction will both work together to get rid of Democrats.


    June 27, 2016 at 4:42 pm

  14. “The justices on the Court all went to Ivy League law schools…”

    One would be hard pressed to name a group of people who’ve done more damage to America than graduates from Ivy League law schools.

    Lewis Medlock

    June 27, 2016 at 5:03 pm

    • And also graduates of Ivy League schools in general.


      June 28, 2016 at 2:23 pm

  15. The other side of the safety issue is that pro-choice ideology has prevented really shoddy clinics (often the ones run and patronized by NAMs) from being cleaned up or closed. An example was Kermit Gosnell’s clinic, which stayed open for years.

    David Pinsen

    June 27, 2016 at 6:32 pm

  16. Since black women exercise their beautiful Right To Choose six times for every one time that a White woman exercises her terrible Right To Choose, I say God bless Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills. It’s like chemotherapy: sure, you kill some cells you want alive, but you kill a lot more cancer cells — at least that’s the idea. And there’s no prohibition anywhere in the Bible against abortion.


    June 27, 2016 at 6:34 pm

    • There is no prohibition in the Bible anywhere against cannibalism. Certain things are self evident. The Almighty says to be fruitful and multiply, not fornicate and abort.

      Now, how is the fetus a woman’s body? There is no way that it is. There is the egg, the sperm and the soul and ones it’s formed it has an independent existence. It’s just developing in the woman’s body, but it isn’t her body. This is very basic and even if you don’t beleive in the soul, it doesn’t make it her’s. She only contributed the egg. The judges can’t think straight. How is this a constitutional right? This is a constitutional wrong. Constitution says that every man is endowed with self-evident natural rights which include life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Where is this fetus’ constitutional rights? Fetuses are just little people and they are real. If they weren’t real, you wouldn’t have to abort them. This is simple logic that makes perfect sense, or at least this is what I think.


      June 27, 2016 at 8:09 pm

      • Okay, they’re people. But they’re people who can survive only by taking resources from an unwilling host. That should be the pro-abortion argument, not whether a fetus is human.


        June 28, 2016 at 12:45 am

      • Tough nuggies! This is her biological thing and she can’t about because she is ‘unwilling host’. There is nobody else to do it.


        June 28, 2016 at 2:57 pm

      • “they’re people who can survive only by taking resources from an unwilling host.”

        By which logic most people on welfare should be killed.


        June 29, 2016 at 12:05 am

  17. Stephen Miller, Trump’s Goebbels-like policy advisor and warm-up speaker, confirmed to be Jewish:


    June 27, 2016 at 7:13 pm

    • That’s a Jew to be proud of.


      June 27, 2016 at 9:40 pm

      • Some other Jews who deserve praise are Rabbi Mayer Schiller, an HBD advocate, and David Yerushalmi, a reactionary lawyer and outspoken critic of political correctness.

        Lewis Medlock

        June 28, 2016 at 11:46 am

      • Stephen Miller

        You mean (((Stephen Miller))).

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 28, 2016 at 7:09 pm

      • If Jews aren’t white why didn’t (((Miller’s))) legions of alt-right fans realize what his ethnicity is the moment they saw him interviewed?

        The Undiscovered Jew

        June 28, 2016 at 7:26 pm

    • Before that the only people calling him jewish were the undiscovered jew and the stormfront crowd.


      June 29, 2016 at 9:26 am

  18. I’m 110% for abortion. I give PP $ each year too. More abortions, less blacks. Win-win.


    June 27, 2016 at 8:43 pm

  19. “When can the anti-abortion people give up on this issue and move on?”

    They will never give up. For two reasons:
    1) The courts took away the possibility of it being settled politically, so the decision seems illegitimate.
    2) Abortion is evil, particularly late term

    It isn’t going away. The gay marriage thing won’t either.


    June 27, 2016 at 9:32 pm

  20. Maimonides was the smartest Jew qua Jew of modern times, and understood Biblical Hebrew excellently. He was more pro-life than Scalia or Alito even. Pro-life is a Jewish issue. (The smartest Jew of modern times was probably Spinoza, but he was a theist and hence not the smartest Jew qua Jew, that would still be Maimonides – and Spinoza would have been pro-life in any event… Einstein,the usual go-to guy when people talk about smart Jews, never denied living in Spergerville, and he was a horndog for much of his life, both of which attributes realistically disqualify a person from weighing in on ethical questions about real men and real women. Even Einstein, though, never voted for a pro-choice politician).

    howitzer daniel

    June 27, 2016 at 9:33 pm

    • So Maimonides wanted the black population to increase by 500% every few decades? That was his position?

      Doesn’t sound like a genius to me.

      Greasy William

      June 28, 2016 at 1:07 am

      • Sounds like a stupid Christian to me.

        Lewis Medlock

        June 28, 2016 at 4:09 pm

    • When did the modern era begin? Maimonides dies in 1204


      June 29, 2016 at 9:26 am

      • For Jews I would say modern times began when the matrilineal line was established as primary by the majority of rabbis (look up the Kairites to see the other approach). For Christians who are not Jewish, I would say after the death of Polycarp (the last known writer to be a friend of a friend of Jesus of Nazareth). For Harold Bloom type professors, modern times begin with Shakespeare’s improvements on Montaigne; for another example, when I went to college people were impressed if you knew Rimbaud (late 1800s) was as modern as Bob Dylan. While I am no psychologist, I would guess that in the hearts of most contemporary and progressive agnostics and atheists, modern times could not have begun before the most significant changes in popular culture in their early years – getting excited about steampunk art , calling Elvis Presley old school, and thinking SNL “revolutionized” comedy being good examples of the confusion (from the very early, slightly past the middle, and late middle parts of the 20th century, respectively). These are all non-political non-sociological examples, there are many political and sociological examples too.

        howitzer daniel

        June 29, 2016 at 9:00 pm

  21. Trump accidentally exposed the pro-lifers as phonies and frauds. They were shocked when Trump made the obvious inference that an abortion ban would have to be enforced by punishing women. (In fact, It would have to be the death penalty.)
    Pro-life is really all about righteous indignation and virtue signaling. They are just wasting our time and should be called out on this.


    June 28, 2016 at 12:41 am

    • Ridiculous. I am all for being contrarian but you are just saying things that are not true.

      howitzer daniel

      June 29, 2016 at 9:36 pm

  22. Look at this POS Harvard graduate (Natlie Portman). She is completely rude and arrogant, scowls at Zach Galifianakis throughout the whole interview, shows no class or human decency whatsoever, and AT THE SAME TIME virtue signals about her “charity work” in Africa. That’s right, white male, only people in Africa are important! YOU do not deserve even basic human dignity. She is the epitome of everything that is wrong with the American so-called higher classes. You would think that because she is a movie star, she could at least be happy about it, but NOOOO she’s gotta be a miserable cunt on behalf of the children in Africa.

    Fuck Harvard.

    InB4 some beta schmuck says “I’d let her be rude to me any time HURR DURR”


    June 28, 2016 at 12:53 am

    • It’s supposed to be a comedy type of thing where the nerdy interview asks awkward and weird questions.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      June 28, 2016 at 2:32 pm

    • you sound like you’re about to go full elliot rodger over this


      June 28, 2016 at 10:15 pm

      • America has no place for guys who are deemed beta.

        Btw, Portman is a Yenta, not a White Gentile Shiksa, although the differences are lessening as we speak.


        June 29, 2016 at 9:25 am

  23. > Once you accept stare decisis …….

    Liberals have ruined any respect for stare decisis. I don’t respect it and no right thinking American should respect it anymore. It’s all about power. Liberals have learned how to use the courts to advance their power. Let them enjoy their moment in the sun while they have it. Nothing lasts forever, especially nothing as stupid as western liberalism.


    June 28, 2016 at 1:55 am

  24. Feminism is a religion and abortion is it’s sacrament. No apostasy can be permitted.
    And so what if it’s mostly black babies that are being sliced up while they’re still alive and butchered for spare parts? No price is too high to pay in the fight against the patriarchy. Ask any white SJW. Especially if someone else is paying the price.
    Anyway, I’m not a constitutional lawyer, so that’s just my opinion.


    June 28, 2016 at 10:44 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: