Roberts Rebukes Schumer For Threatening Justices With Retaliation Over Rulings

In an extraordinary attack on the independence of the judiciary, Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer threatened  Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh with retaliation if they voted against abortion rights this term. As I discussed in my column yesterday, the Court heard oral arguments today in June Medical Services v. Russo. Schumer joined protests on the steps of the Court to warn the justices that they “will pay the price” if they vote against abortion rights. Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public rebuke (as he did earlier with President Trump) to defend the integrity of the judiciary. He was right to do so. Schumer sounded more like a stalker than a statesmen in his threats of future retaliation.

At the rally, Schumer declared “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!” Schumer warned. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

It was an enormously popular statement at the rally and with many liberals. However, it was also a direct assault on the principles of our judicial system. There are good faith arguments on both sides of this case, but Schumer was trying to coerce or intimidate justices to yield to his demands for the outcome. It was a shameful moment for any member of Congress but particularly for the Democratic leader in the Senate.

It was also not an isolated incident. In an unprecedented filing in a prior gun rights case, Democratic Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal, Richard Durbin, and Kirsten Gillibrand, warned conservative justices that they should change their voting patterns or face congressional intervention. They wrote that the Supreme Court “can heal itself before the public demands” it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”  The brief written by Whitehouse was a shocking and raw threat of retaliation.

On this occasion, Roberts responded in a public statement:

“This morning, Senator Schumer spoke at a rally in front of the Supreme Court while a case was being argued inside. Senator Schumer referred to two Members of the Court by name and said he wanted to tell them that ‘You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.’ “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”

I have been critical of Roberts for his failure to call out colleagues on the Court. However, on this occasion he is absolutely correct in denouncing Schumer for his intemperate and irresponsible rhetoric.

The Democrats have made Trump’s attack on the judiciary into a major political issue going into the 2020 election. I have agreed with that criticism of President Trump. However, they are comparatively quiet in the face of these threats from Schumer. Moreover, Democrats are now openly calling for litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees and demonizing Republican appointees who rule against their own positions.

The fear is not that the justices will yield to such threats. The Framers anticipated politicians like Schumer who would try to intimidate or harass members of the Court. Life tenure is the protection crafted to insulate members of the judiciary. No, the danger is how Schumer’s words further degrade the view of the rule of law and the court system as a whole.

Schumer needs to apologize without delay or reservation.

230 thoughts on “Roberts Rebukes Schumer For Threatening Justices With Retaliation Over Rulings”

  1. P.C.S. But living in Manhattan is so hip and cool. It’s to die for.

    1. Independent Bob – evidently it is worth killing your kids for.

      1. It’s not worth killing your kids for but Manhattan can be very attractive to younger people. I am there a number of times a year but every year I become less and less enamoured with the city.

        1. Blame it on Deblasio. How could New York reelect the loser and do that to themselves?

  2. Preview: example of Crystal Meth’s effects on West Hollywood LGBT follows below this comment in the person of Seth Warner. Seth goes by numerous sockpuppet accounts, an example of a crystal meth abuser, almost always uses hysteria, unadulterated shill and detatched from reality. Said addict refers to debunked and widely mocked sources like Wah Putz, NYTimes and other specious outlets that are being sued by Americans for libel, many of which are being settled out of court

    In recent surveys of nearly 1,600 people in West Hollywood, more than 70% of respondents said that meth use at community events, bars and clubs is a “pressing issue” for the city, according to the Safe West Hollywood Community Coalition.

    The coalition and city employees recently have begun going to major events like LA Pride and West Hollywood’s Halloween Carnaval to hand out free naloxone, a medication that can reverse drug overdoses, as well as condoms and testing strips to determine whether recreational drugs are laced with fentanyl.

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the contamination of illicit drugs like methamphetamine with fentanyl — a synthetic opioid 50 times more potent than heroin — is a growing public health concern. Often, users are unaware that it has been added.

    “People don’t even realize they’re doing fentanyl,” Duran said. “We’re seeing a lot of people in our community who just thought they were going to party and not waking up the next day.

    “When you throw in sexuality, oppression, shame, stigma, HIV, meth and then add fentanyl in the mix, it’s a deadly combination.”

    The town hall panelists said that one of the tragedies of chemsex is that it often stems from loneliness and LGBTQ people’s shame around their sexuality or gender identity. Tesema said that in a world increasingly connected by technology, “we’re in a crisis of loneliness.”

    The questions from the audience reflected that: “Can you talk about how this ties in with mental health and self-esteem and suicide prevention?” “How can I get people to rally around this issue?”

    Melissa McCracken, a chemsex counselor for Breathe Life Healing Center in West Hollywood, said people “lose self intimacy” when in the throes of drug addiction and that meth use “disables empathy, which is one of the tragic casualties.”

    “Giving yourself the space and the time to actually connect with another person is difficult, but it’s not impossible,” she said.

    Tesema noted that people often become depressed when they relapse after trying to stop using meth, even though relapse is “not only common but an expected process in recovery.”

    In the lobby afterward, where naloxone and fenantyl-testing strips were being handed out, a 31-year-old man said the town hall was a nice change of pace from the crystal meth and alcohol addiction recovery meetings he attends.

    The man, who asked that his name not be used because he was in recovery, said he works as a property manager for a 187-unit building in Westwood and has had to call authorities twice recently because of tenants overdosing on heroin.

    Sobriety meetings are peer-to-peer, he said. Seeing issues like chemsex and meth use be discussed bluntly by experts, in a City Council chamber, gave him hope that they would get more attention, he said.

    “To see that the city is behind it is amazing,” he said. “It elevates it, for sure.

    1. Stop claiming Seth is a drug addict or promiscuous. Accusations of drug addiction should not be weaponized.

      Come on. Please play nice.

      1. Karen, Professor Turley is really the victim. Estovir thinks nothing of trashing these threads. A novice reader would be confused; thinking this might be a pick up site for gay lawyers.

        But I seriously question if the moderator has the will to stop this harassment. I suspect the moderator views ‘me’ as the antagonist. The moderator doesnt like my politics so Estovir is given some degree of latitude in smearing me.

        The truth us liberals have been greatly outnumbered by conservatives during the two years I have commented. Yet I am required to fight with one tied behind my back. Certain commenters are allowed to be as abusive as they want towards me. Yet I can only respond with mild disdain.

        1. JT should tell Darren to delete the comments to which you’re referring, Seth. The abuse is obvious and should not be tolerated.

    2. FYI Potter and Turley: While I love the blog, this kind of off-topic, self-indulgent blah-blah blather not only denigrades the author (Potter) but degrades the quality and focus of the host (Turley). … Or maybe that is what Potter hopes.

  3. Preview: Lengthy Short Story Ahead

    Commenter Betrix presents an unedited version of, “Why My Wife And I Decided To Abort Our Unborn Gay Son”; a short story from The Federalist widely shared among Anti-Abortion activists.

    The Federalist published this fictional piece slightly more than a year ago.  It was written by Stephen Laveda, whom The Federalist identifies as an ‘”Engineer by day”.  Engineers are known for very droll writing.  So The Federalist bills Laveda’s story as ‘Satire’.

    The ‘humor’, however, travels scarcely beyond Evangelical America, or remaining pockets of Catholic influence.  But within those jurisdictions, Laveda’s fiction is considered a masterpiece of anti-abortion satire.  Like minded readers shall perceive this work as a ‘devastating indictment’ of liberal values.

    Commenter Betrix, who presents all 500 paragraph, is known for unusually long posts.  Betrix seeks to discourage readers from venturing much further.  An entire short story, satirizing abortion, is calculated to test.  Betrix, in fact, dares you to exit!

    1. ”Betrix, in fact, dares you to exit!”

      Peter has met his been foiled by Beatrix Potter. no surprise here

  4. Yet another amazing spectacle by wacko extreme neo-liberals, a senator threatening members of the judicial branch !?!? And did you see all those women, dancing, screaming, celebrating their ability to kill babies !?!?

    How evil can these people get? I fear we’ve only seen the surface.

  5. OT: We talk about climate change and electric vehicles. Here is a simple video that takes a complex problem and makes it a lot simpler.

  6. I heard a story about a young couple that lived in Manhattan and were trying to have a child. They tried and tried but no pregnancy. Then they went to a fertility clinic. And low and behold she gets pregnant. Happiness. As time goes by they find out she is not going to have one baby and she is not going to have two babies, but she was pregnant with triplets. Then the couple starts to think how expensive it is to live in Manhattan. When they started this endeavor they wanted to have a baby, but they felt that they couldn’t afford three. So they aborted two of them. Somehow I think this is wrong. What do you think?


        Why My Wife And I Decided To Abort Our Unborn Gay Son

        Even Richard Dawkins tweeted it would be immoral to have a child who would suffer because of his genetics. I’m sure we’re on solid ground here.

        My girlfriend and I recently found out she is pregnant. I told her I’d support her and the baby, and secretly started saving for an engagement ring. She said she thought I would have wanted her to get an abortion. I didn’t—at least at first.

        She was excited and started planning the nursery. It took me two months to save up, but I finally got on one knee and popped the question. She cried and said yes. I’m still scared about being a dad, but I’ve got a good job and so does she. We’ll make a great family, just the three of us.

        Last week, though, she went in for a checkup. We decided to get full fetal blood work done. Everyone’s doing it; the doctor said there is little risk to the fetus, and better safe than sorry, right? I’m sure everything will be fine, and we’ll learn the sex. I really hope it’s a boy.

        Oh, and we decided to make everything official with a trip to the courthouse. We are married now!

        Well, got the blood work results, and there’s good news and bad news. Good news: It’s a boy and he’s healthy. Bad news: He’s gay. I didn’t even know there was a blood test for that now, but I guess it’s new? They found the genes that cause homosexuality and they test for them now.

        I’m a really tolerant person, but this has made me think hard. I don’t know how I feel about trying to raise a gay son. Will I be able to relate to him? Won’t his life be super hard? I know things are getting better for gay people, but it seems to me that being gay is really hard in the South, where we live. Gay people aren’t really accepted here like in other parts of the country yet.

        This really started to weigh on my mind, so I did some research. Suicide attempts are significantly higher among gay teens—five times more likely. Gay kids are five times more likely than a heterosexual youth to end up hospitalized as a result. More than 70 percent of calls to Trevor Lifeline, a targeted suicide prevention hotline, come from the South and central regions of the country, right where I live.

        Another study found that any kind of victimization at school leads to much higher risks of substance abuse. Studies in progressive states like Vermont and Massachusetts found that for gay and bisexual boys, rates of victimization were nearly five times that of straight kids. More disturbingly, that victimization coincides with a host of risky behaviors, from cigarette and alcohol abuse all the way up to hard drugs like cocaine and heroin. Gay kids are way more likely to do all of these things than similarly persecuted straight kids.

        On top of that, in every studied risk factor but cigarette use, gay and bisexual boys are at a much greater risk than girls. What kind of life will my gay son have? How could I justify subjecting him to such horrible experiences for his entire life?

        I can’t imagine what things here in the South must be like. I remember being accused of being gay in school. It was awful. I don’t know if we could send our child to public schools. We would need to find and pay for a progressive private school. If we couldn’t afford it, I guess we could homeschool.

        But this is not at all how we wanted our future to be. We both have good jobs we love, but I don’t see how we can afford private schools—and which one of us would give up our job to homeschool our son?

        So my wife and I talked, and we’ve decided we aren’t ready to raise a gay child. It isn’t fair to raise a gay child in our area. It would be so hard for our son to live here. And I don’t think either of us could handle it if he killed himself.

        Moving elsewhere just to have this baby would be totally unfair to us. We are going to get an abortion, both for the child’s sake and for ours. It’s the best thing for all of us. I’m really glad we found out before it’s too late. I’ve never been more thankful for a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body.

        My wife told one of her friends that we are going to have an abortion because we don’t feel equipped to deal with raising a gay child. Apparently it got around to some of our gay friends from college. I’ve been getting emails, texts, and IMs all day from them asking me why I’m a homophobe, and why I hate gay people.

        I don’t hate gay people! I just can’t bring a child into the world who would have such a hard time. I mean, we’d do the same thing if the fetus had Down syndrome, and so would about 67 percent of others if they found themselves in that situation. Even Richard Dawkins tweeted that it would be immoral to have a child who would suffer because of his genetics. Many people believe it’s immoral to bring a child into the world who is just going to suffer. Ending the pregnancy is just better for everyone. It seems so obvious.

        I don’t understand. It’s my wife’s body. It’s her choice, and I agree with it. It’s our choice of what to do with our pregnancy. How can anyone else tell my wife what to do with her body?

        Tomorrow is the day we are supposed to go in for the abortion, but we’ve had to switch clinics twice due to the threats. We actually ended up crossing state lines to go to a clinic, four hours from home. Thankfully the federal law allowing abortion makes that possible. I was exhausted, but it’s our choice. No one else can tell us what my wife is allowed to do with her body.

        We got to the clinic almost an hour early. They made us sit in the waiting room for a while and finally called us back, but instead of walking us into a table with stirrups like we expected, they escorted us into an office. A man in a lab coat was waiting at a desk.

        “I recognize you,” he said, after looking at us sternly for what seemed like an eternity. I didn’t know what to say, so I didn’t say anything. My wife didn’t speak either. “What you are doing should be a hate crime, and I won’t have any part in it,” the man said, looking angry.

        “But it’s my body,” my wife said, sounding defiant, but like a little girl too. “It’s my right.”

        “It’s hateful,” the doctor responds. “You are terminating this pregnancy because you don’t want a gay child. Are gay children less valuable than straight children?” He sounded like a teacher trying to impart a lesson to a very slow student.

        “No, but—” my wife started to say.

        “A gay child has just as much value as a straight child. In fact, you are lucky! Gay children are very rare. Census numbers put the number of homosexuals in America at around 3 percent. It wouldn’t take many more people like you,” he nearly spits the words, “to eliminate homosexuality in America. That’s genocide, and I won’t have that on my conscience!”

        With that, we were ushered out. My wife cried all the way home. When we got there, we found that someone had firebombed our rented townhouse and wrote “Bigotry Doesn’t Belong Here!” and “Love Wins!” in spray paint on the sidewalk. I guess some fetuses are more equal than others, but I can’t understand it. I just followed all the arguments I’ve heard from our society to their logical conclusions.

        Steve Lavedas is an engineer by day and a writer by night. He is interested in making sense of the world his three children will grow up in. He lives in Virginia with his family.

        1. If Posts By Betrix..

          Seem Long And Boring..

          They’re Supposed To Be!

          It’s no coincidence.  Betrix ‘wants’ to discourage you from reading any further.

          Betrix hope’s you think this blog is for long-winded dullards.  The type of people we by-pass whenever possible.

          And why should Betrix be so spiteful?  ‘To prevent you from reading posts by Seth Warner’. 
          ..That’s it..!  A personal grudge by a disgruntled commenter.  So Betrix wants you to click off here; hence the impossibly long posts.

          1. Seth Warner has stated he lives in West Hollywood, and is often commenting on this forum during the late hours

            There is a reason why Seth / John Burgoyne / Enoch Poor / Peter Shill / Paint chips / WTF trolls this blog in a shilling, whining voice….


            Fighting meth-fueled ‘chemsex’ in the LGBTQ community, West Hollywood takes a stand

            “The topic at the packed town hall Wednesday night was a growing crisis, especially in the LGBTQ community, that health experts say is not talked about enough: “chemsex,” or using drugs like methamphetamine, cocaine and MDMA to enhance sexual activity and lower inhibitions.

            Also called “party and play,” chemsex has become pervasive on online dating apps like Adam4Adam, Scruff and Grindr, where people use constantly changing code words and emojis to show they want to use or buy drugs and have sex, said Jimmy Palmieri, founder of the Tweakers Project, a support group for people struggling with crystal meth addiction.

            “I don’t think there’s anyone in West Hollywood that hasn’t been touched, somehow, some way, by meth,” Palmieri said.

            In West Hollywood, methamphetamine was involved in 47 deaths between 2015 and 2018, and meth-related hospitalizations have steadily ticked upward for the last decade, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

            The event follows the overdose deaths of two black gay men in the West Hollywood apartment of Democratic donor Ed Buck, who was accused last fall of injecting fatal doses of crystal methamphetamine into victims for his own sexual gratification.

            “For far too long, I think, meth has been overlooked as a public health crisis,” said Dr. Lello Tesema, an associate medical director at the L.A. County Department of Public Health Division of Substance Abuse Prevention and Control.

            While it does not have the same national attention as the opioid crisis, methamphetamine in the Los Angeles area “is actually incredibly prevalent and incredibly dangerous,” she said.

            The town hall came at a time when, city leaders say, there is a critical shortage of spaces in West Hollywood that can and will accommodate addiction recovery groups. Currently, the fate of a run-down log cabin on Robertson Boulevard that hosts some two dozen sobriety meetings each week is up in the air. Beverly Hills owns the lot on which it sits and wants it gone; West Hollywood officials are trying to lease it to keep the meetings going.

            Town hall panelist Jason De Puy, a drag queen, said that the problem is rarely discussed openly. There are “influencers on Instagram with a hundred thousand followers, and they’re doing crystal meth on the side, and no one understands or even knows that and everyone’s scared to talk about it,” he said.

            De Puy, who has been sober for eight years, said that, like many young gay men who come to West Hollywood, he had not been taught about gay sex and was ashamed by it. He was introduced to crystal meth at a bathhouse, and it seemed to make intimacy easier and more euphoric.

            The addiction quickly took over his life. He was homeless for a spell before moving into an apartment filled with cockroaches, fleas and bedbugs.

            “Meth and sex kept me from having to deal with life,” De Puy said.

            “When I got sober, I had to learn how to have sex again because I was used to this seedy, dangerous, risky sex…. You can go to the orgies, honey. You can go to the bathhouse. You can do this stuff sober,” De Puy said.

            De Puy, 29, said he’s “had so many friends die unexpectedly” from overdoses.

            1. “There is a reason why Seth / John Burgoyne / Enoch Poor / Peter Shill / Paint chips / WTF trolls this blog in a shilling, whining voice….”

              Linda, you are not the first to bring up this type of behavior about Paint Chips. It makes on think.

            2. It’s not nice to make an accusation that another commenter is a drug addict. You have no evidence.

              Come on, guys.

          2. Paint Chips, if that was too long for you then why did you ask me to post the address of the article in the prestigious BJOP? That would be long and one that you wouldn’t even be able to understand if you had to read the entire study.

    1. I wonder what their child is going to think about that when he or she grows up. To have had your own mother kill your triplet siblings must be grim. He would always think it could have been him that his mother killed. He just happened to be farther away from the poison needle.

      1. I think the situation is a setup for emotional problems for the remaining child… a type of guilt. We see that sometimes in the children of survivors of the Haulocaust.

        I guess living in Manhattan was more important to the parents than moving to one of the other boroughs or outside of NYC completely.

    2. If you get three, by chance, or by accident, you keep three. Talk about anxiety issues for the one left…and no siblings.

      Also, they should just move. Who the heck wants to live in Manhattan, the only way to live there comfortable is with a driver.

      They found the black plague, as well as many other things from wiping the subway with qtips to pdish.

      The subway is a bona fide pdish…i wonder if they spray them down with chemicals at some point to clean them…idk

  7. Why Is Court Hearing This Case?

    Similar Texas Law Struck 4 Years Ago

    Senator Schumer is no doubt outraged that the court is even hearing this case.  The court struck down an almost identical law in Texas in 2016.  The only changes since then are Donald Trump and Bret Kavanaugh.  And that’s all we need to know.  

    By hearing this case the court is essentially saying that precedent no longer matters.  Instead a change at the White House is all that is needed to revisit an issue that was already decided.  The court is not supposed to work that way.

    One should note there is no medical reason for abortion providers to have Hospital Admitting Privileges.  Statistically abortions are a fairly safe procedure; on par with garden variety, out-patient treatments.  But if complications develop, women are still perfectly capable of going to the hospital of their choice. It’s not like hospitals can bar a woman from entering because her doctor lacked Admitting Privileges.

    Therefore these laws requiring Hospitals Admitting Privileges for abortion providers are fundamentally disengenous in nature.  They are designed, as everyone knows, to shut down abortion providers.  For that reason the admissions requirement is what’s known as a TRAP law, ‘Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers’.

    The fact that the court is even hearing this case amounts to A Second Chance For Trap Laws.

    1. Statistically abortions are a fairly safe procedure; on par with garden variety, out-patient treatments.

      Not for the unwanted baby.

      But if complications develop, women are still perfectly capable of going to the hospital of their choice.

      Oops, sorry Miss, just head on over to your preferred hospital and they’ll be happy to uncomplicate that hemorrhage for you. Please don’t forget to rate our services on Yelp. See you next time.

      1. Olly, show me stats from a well-known source that say abortion is a ‘dangerous’ procedure for women.

        1. GFY Paint Chips. You were the one that brought up the But if complications develop, point. Show the data describing the various complications that may happen, including the number of infants that survive the procedure.

        2. “Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion. The strongest subgroup estimates of increased risk occurred when abortion was compared with term pregnancy and when the outcomes pertained to substance use and suicidal behaviour.”

          British Journal of Psychiatry

          1. Allan,
            If it doesn’t come from the WaPo or NYT, Paint Chips won’t recognize that as a well known source.

            1. As many have often said if something isn’t posted in one of his preferred reading journals it’s “nothing”.

              Paint Chips, you never heard of BJOP? I believe they have done a number of articles involving lead poisoning and brain disorders. I quoted directly from the BJOP so you should have no problem finding it but if you want its exact location then give me a good reason other than you don’t believe I quoted from it.

              AS a hint I will quote from the conclusions of the abstract:
              This review offers the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion available in the world literature. Calling into question the conclusions from traditional reviews, the results revealed a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Consistent with the tenets of evidence-based medicine, this information should inform the delivery of abortion services.”

              I will add the following: “the sample comprised 22 studies, 36 measures of effect and 877 181 participants (163 831 experienced an abortion)” A total number of 877,181 is quite large.

              This is information that has been well reported and discussed except some wish to deny the existence of any problems with abortion. That is the problem Paint Chips when you only read those things specifically written to provide an opinion you want to hear. I personally haven’t studied the situation well enough to draw an educated conclusion so I am just quoting from a source that I have been aware of for a long time. Now as usual you can forget that this evidence exists.

              I will also tell you it is published by Cambridge University Press.

                    1. Paint Chips, of the op-eds you cited did any of them include the almost 1 million subject study from the BJOP? I don’t think so.

                      What you are doing is advocating, not discussing science.


                      With Louisiana Abortion Case, the Supreme Court Can Re-Establish the Rule of Law

                      COMMENTARY: Women shouldn’t entrust the defense of their health-and-safety interests as patients at abortion businesses to the very interests that have flouted existing health-and-safety regulations.

                      Pro-life activists participate in a rally outside of the Supreme Court as the justices hear oral arguments in the June Medical Services v. Russo case Wednesday in Washington. The Louisiana abortion case is the first major abortion case to make it to the Supreme Court since Donald Trump became president.

                      The Supreme Court has been the accomplice of the nation’s abortion advocates for almost half a century. In 2020, however, the high court has the opportunity to end this unholy alliance.

                      On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case — June Medical Services v. Russo — that will allow the court to right many of the wrongs of its abortion jurisprudence.

                      The June case involves a challenge by abortionists and abortion businesses to a Louisiana “hospital admitting privileges” law. The Louisiana legislators supporting the law responded to a long string of abortion industry abuses that put the lives of Louisiana women at risk. Failing to stock emergency materials, little oversight of controlled substances, and gross medical negligence were commonplace. The failure to screen physicians for competency was the norm. At June Medical Service’s Shreveport facility, for example, an ophthalmologist and a radiologist performed abortions.

                      “If you are going to perform abortions in the State of Louisiana,” State Rep. Katrina Jackson stated in introducing her admitting privileges bill, “you’re going to do so in a safe environment and in a safe manner that offers women the optimal protection and care of their bodies.” You might think this Democratic legislator’s common sense, pro-women’s health regulation would be welcomed by all medical professionals, particularly by those claiming that abortion is health care. But you would be wrong. “Abortion rights” today has nothing to do about the “rights holders.”

                      Opponents of the law argue that this is an open-and-shut case of unconstitutional overreach by state officials. They point to a 2016 case — Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt — in which the Supreme Court struck down a hospital admitting privileges law passed in Texas (in a 5-3 decision). Unlike the Texas case, however, Louisiana legislators set forth a clear factual case for establishing “quality control” over those performing abortions in the state. It’s also worth noting that they did not unfairly raise the bar for abortion doctors. Their state requires all other ambulatory surgical doctors in the state to have hospital admitting privileges. Mandating that abortionists have hospital admitting privileges simply closes the abortionists’ loophole that gives them preferential treatment.

                      Even before considering the merits of the Louisiana law, the Supreme Court should address the important jurisprudential matter of whether this case should even be in federal court — the so-called standing issue. You see, a person generally can go to court only to assert his or her own legal rights and interests. A narrow exception to this “standing” rule exists only when a third party has a close relationship to the right-holder or is unable to sue and can trust the third party to pursue his or her interests. Here, Louisiana’s abortionists and abortion centers — the very interests whose practices placed the state’s women in danger — sued to block the admitting privileges law. Not one woman joined their complaint.

                      For all its problems, the tragic 1973 Roe v. Wade case creating a constitutional right to abortion, was filed on behalf of an anonymous woman — Jane Roe. (The world would later know Roe by her real name, Norma McCorvey). Since Roe, however, abortionists and abortion businesses are more often than not the plaintiffs running to court to block reasonable regulation of their business. Consider the 1992 Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which ruled that an abortion regulation would be unconstitutional if it placed “substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” It was brought not by any aggrieved woman in Pennsylvania but by five abortion facilities and an abortionist.

                      The 2016 Texas admitting privileges case similarly was brought by the centers and abortion doctors. Justice Clarence Thomas, in his scathing dissent in Whole Woman’s Health, denounced his colleagues in the majority for “erroneously allow[ing] doctors and clinics to vicariously vindicate the putative constitutional right of women seeking abortions.”

                      Women shouldn’t entrust the defense of their health-and-safety interests as patients at abortion businesses to the very interests that have flouted existing health-and-safety regulations. Particularly in Louisiana. At Wednesday’s oral arguments, Justice Samuel Alito zeroed in on this clear conflict. “Would you agree with the general proposition that a party should not be able to sue ostensibly to protect the rights of other people,” he asked, “if there is a real conflict of interest between the party who is suing and those whose rights the party claims to be attempting to defend?”

                      Unsurprisingly, the lawyer for the Louisiana abortionists was fine with this conflict of interest. The court should align abortion-related lawsuits with all other cases brought before our courts and make clear that only women claiming to be aggrieved by a given regulation can challenge that regulation in court.

                      Should the court decide not to rectify its standing rules in abortion cases and throw out the abortionists’ challenge, it can, of course, review the case on its merits or substance. State governments exercise regulatory authority for the good of the people they represent in all kinds of areas. Louisiana legislators responded to horrific findings by state investigators, and after holding hearings where women recounted suffering grave injury and unthinkable neglect by abortionists. Such good governance isn’t a burden for women. Rather, it’s a laudable recognition of our worth and dignity.

                      That this is not the view of abortionists and their apologists became clear in another notable exchange during Wednesday’s oral arguments. “So your view is that [admitting privileges laws] are unconstitutional in any state, regardless of the facts?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked counsel for the abortion businesses.

                      The counsel’s response: “They certainly serve no valid state interest.”

                      There you have it — no valid state interest — in all its cold cruelty.

                      Rather than continue to allow the abortion industry to craft rules that leave it virtually unsupervised, the Supreme Court in June can re-establish the rule of law — a rule that should protect women’s health and safety.

                      Andrea Picciotti-Bayer is legal adviser for The Catholic Association Foundation.

                1. A study with almost a million people in the study is bogus according to Paint Chips but an anonymous source to Paint Chips is better than good.

                  I think the Institute is publishing their own articles. What peer reviewed studies are they talking about from your citation? We already know their bias, just look at the last line of the page.

                  “Cover illustrations of Margaret Sanger…”

                  Look at where the stories come from in the articles that follow. Yours are not peer reviewed articles from a major journal like the BJOP is.

                  Paint Chips, you can’t be for real.

                  The study that I provided was from a well regarded British medical journal that is peer reviewed. Peter Paint Chips is proving that nothing he says has value.

                  1. Every time Allan says “Paint Chips” he feels like Donald Trump. He’s a silly boy imitating his idol.

                    1. Maybe I feel the same way when I call you Anonymous the Stupid or the Brainless Wonder? You don’t like it because it cuts through your anonimity. That you get so upset that you feel compelled to repeat the same things over and over again never debating the context shows your ego recognizes your own Stupidity.

              1. Who wouldn’t be depressed after an abortion? It’s not one of life’s most stellar moments after all.

                The thing is, Allan…a single study doesn’t cut it in the realm of research. In this case the reason why can be boiled down to the fact that postpartum depression is also a reality…,

                So the anti abortion trope that ‘abortion causes depression’ is not nearly focused enough. You have to try harder, bud.

                1. “a single study doesn’t cut it in the realm of research. ”

                  Anon, you are an idiot. Take note this was a mega study of almost 1 million lives and didn’t include one study rather it included 22 studies. Taking to you is like talking to a grade schooler with an over inflated ego. Don’t you even bother to read what you are responding to?

                  “the sample comprised 22 studies, 36 measures of effect and 877 181 participants (163 831 experienced an abortion)” A total number of 877,181 is quite large.

                  1. So, this ‘idiot’ agreed with the results. But knows it’s just one data point — the hallmark of bad science given that it’s not determinative (postpartum depression comparison) and it’s basically just common sense. Basically, it’s a study that’s been hijacked by anti abortion forces.

                    Repeat, until you balance it with postpartum studies it’s shoddy science even if the (one study) is valid. it

                    And you didn’t link the study itself.

                    1. The abstract was linked by another.

                      Anon, I responded to Paint Chips who I think asked for evidence to the contrary of his opinion. I provided such evidence and that evidence was discussed at length a number of years ago. Paint Chips went to a Margaret Sanger type blog to get evidence that is questionable at best. This was a pretty conclusive study based on the numbers and the various studies used in the meta study. I don’t expect anyone to necessarily agree but I don’t expect grownups to act in such a stupid fashion.

                    2. You’re using one data point in your argument, no matter what the studies internals are. All studies have internals. It takes away from your thesis because you don’t provide an antithesis with which to reach a synthesis. Shoddy dialectics. Rather than setting your heels, take in counterbalancing evidence and then weigh the result.

                    3. ” you don’t provide an antithesis with which to reach a synthesis. ”

                      Anon, you obviously have limited facility in reading a study. They don’t provide alternate opinions. They lay out their methodology and their numbers. In this case they created a list of data points to be observed before the study was performed. Then they ran the numbers using controls. This was a meta study to increase the number of subjects. It appears they weren’t looking for one particular answer so they really weren’t aware of how the study would turn out.

                      If you wish to attack the study you have to attack the methodologies, their choices of other studies, the data points obtained and a whole host of other things. In other worlds you would have to read the study and become educated in how studies are done along with the subject matter. You have none of those skills and like Paint Chips you let your ideology guide your mind rather than the other way around.

                      This was a legitimate study.

              1. Paint Chips wasn’t interested in the study. He wanted to prove it wrong and because his world is so small he believed that I couldn’t possibly have found such an article from a prestigious peer reviewed journal. It’s the world of Paint Chips that is under observation. His bias is so severe that he looks for things to disprove anything that is contrary to what he believes. Therefore, he will will rely on anonymous sources, gossip, and ‘studies’ created to produce a story that meets his expectations etc. He is part of the sad story of how many Americans are not taught how to think.

                  1. Anon everyone can see for themselves who the comic book character is and who isn’t. Right now dealing with you is dealing with multiple personalities, none of them very bright and none of them very honest.

                    1. Allan thinks that his replies are smart and witty, and get under the skin of those to whom he’s responding. Most of us just laugh at him. He’s childish.

        3. danger is relative. it certainly has more risk than getting a flu shot. I wonder how it compares to having a tooth pulled? That can hurt and you can get an infection. but you don’t need to go to the hospital for it. let’s use our male imaginations for a second, hmmm, how would you like to get your sphincter dialated and your guts scraped out with a tool? I can’t imagine anybody wanting the provider to take it casually!

          let’s hear from wiki what goes into a dialation and evacuation, or should i say, what comes out?

          Cervical preparation
          Prior to the procedure, cervical preparation with osmotic dilators or medications is recommended in order to reduce risk of complications such as cervical laceration and to facilitate cervical dilation during the procedure.[9][10][11] Although there is no consensus as to which method of cervical preparation is superior in terms of safety and technical ease of the procedure, one particular concern is reducing the risk of preterm birth. Concerns within the medical community have advised against or at least asked for further research concerning the safety of performing the dilation of the cervix on the same day as the surgery for some or all second trimester pregnancies. The concern is that performing the dilation too soon before the surgery could increase the risk of preterm birth should the woman ever carry a subsequent pregnancy to term.[12][13]

          Anesthesia options
          Most patients will be provided NSAIDs for pain management. Local anesthetics, such as lidocaine, are frequently injected by the cervix to reduce pain during the procedure.[14][15][16] IV sedation may also be used. General anesthesia may be used depending on individual circumstances, however it is not preferred as it adds significant anesthesia risks to the procedure.[14]:90-100

          Infection prophylaxis
          Immediately prior to the procedure, antibiotics are usually administered to prevent infection.[15]

          Surgical procedure
          A speculum is placed in the vagina to allow visualization of the cervix. If osmotic dilators were placed prior to the procedure, these are removed.[17]

          The cervix may be further dilated with rigid dilator instruments (as opposed to osmotic dilators.) Sufficient cervical dilation decreases the risk of morbidity, including cervical injury and uterine perforation.[13][15] Uterine contents are removed using a cannula to apply aspiration, followed by forceps.[18] Tissue inspection ensures removal of the fetus in its entirety. The procedure may be performed under ultrasound guidance to aid in visualizing uterine anatomy and to assess if all tissue has been removed at the completion of the procedure.[14]

          The procedure usually takes less than half an hour.[19]

          Most D&E’s are performed in the outpatient setting, and can be safely sent home same day after a period of observed recovery, ranging from 45 minutes to several hours. Generally, the woman may return to work the following day.[19] The type of anesthesia given also influences the appropriate amount of recovery time before discharge. There is rarely a need for narcotic pain medications afterwards, and NSAIDs are recommended for home pain management. Recovery from the procedure is typically fast and uncomplicated.[20]:174

          Some women may experience lactation after a second-trimester loss or termination of pregnancy. At this time, medications to suppress lactation are not proven to be effective. [21]

        4. Seth:

          Late term abortion is childbirth plus the extra step of killing the child and dismembering it.

          Were you unaware that childbirth can have complications?

          1. Karen S – one of my grandmothers died in childbirth. The child survived.

    2. Similar is not the same as identical. The Court wrongly inserted itself into a matter of state administration. People dismiss safety concerns with out patient procedures until something happens.
      If the requirement for admitting privileges is too restrictive, that should be decided by a state supreme court.

      If it is to be decided by the SCOTUS, the ruling will and should be very narrow.

  8. The proposed litmus test for future nominees are if they are Liberal.

    Schumer has made clear what the goal is. To pack the court. The next time Democrats sweep Congress, mark my words. They will enact new legislation that will allow them to appoint more judges…more Liberal judges.

    Personal politics really shouldn’t matter to a Supreme Court justice, or any other judge. But apparently it does. As long as there are judges willing to say the Constitution means what they want it to mean, rather than how it was written, then it will continue to be critically important to both parties to be the one in the White House picking those judges.

    It is Congress’s role to legislate, even going so far as amending the Constitution. It is not the judicial branch’s purview to legislate from the bench, and yet it happens throughout the different circuits.

    Keep the bench impartial, or make it so. Threats against the judicial branch are wrong.

    What I find so disappointing is that there is little effort for Pro Choice to understand the arguments for limits on abortion. They use divisive rhetoric such as the war on women, or it’s a woman’s body. They do not even try to understand that the other side is trying to protect babies. Most people fall along a spectrum of pro and anti-abortion. It’s a range, not a binary code. For instance, many more people support Plan B than the late term abortion of a healthy infant. As long as it’s couched in terms of “war on women” there will be no meaningful discussion or meeting of minds.

  9. Derek C. says:

    I didn’t interpret Schumer’s words as a threat. Just hot air, political rhetoric

    You might want to talk to Congressman Scalise about the effect of hot air.

  10. “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know

    what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

    – Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer

    Egregious beyond the pale.

    Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer should be censured just prior to being impeached and convicted for making specific public

    threats of violence against particular individuals and challenging the authority of the Sovereign, the Constitution, the People.

    1. How about A.G. Barr take legal action against Schumer? His speech immunity is only IN the Senate.

  11. Schumer sounded more like a stalker than a statesmen in his threats of future retaliation.
    To use the words Schumer and statesman in the same sentence should be a crime.

  12. Comrade Schumuckley Putz the pride of ISIS showing his donkey and got caught. That’s two of them who made themselves look like fools.

  13. Hey, it’s what you do when you’re head of The Crime Party in the Senate. Too bad there ‘re no men around to put this nut in the nut cracker. Seems like time, however, for a good ol’ redneck American ass-whooping song:

    1. that song encapsulates the timeless wisdom that all rights are continuously sustained only by the willingness to enforce them with organized violence.

      A rule of organized violence is what a “law” is in the first place.

      “Behind all Kings and Presidents – all government and law,
      Are army-corps and canoneers to hold the world in awe.
      …liberty has never been won except by deeds of war.” — Ragnar Redbeard

      hence,social organization, is the necessary precondition to any continued exercise of any particular rights at all.

      the Left understands this fully and the sooner the rest of the people get it though their thick skulls the better

      Shumer’s remarks aid in the process. I thank him for his candor!

Comments are closed.