Speaking Event for Historian Jon Meacham Cancelled at Samford University

Samford University has cancelled a speaking engagement for historian Jon Meacham, according to Baptist News Global. I have been critical of Meacham’s rhetoric as well as his course materials at Vanderbilt. However, the cancellation of his speech due to his support for pro-choice groups is another example of the rising intolerance on our campuses for opposing viewpoints.  If Meacham’s views are opposed by many on the campus, it is more of a reason to invite him to allow for a diversity of views and values at the university.

The university is a private institution but this is still a blow to free speech even if the First Amendment does not apply.

Meacham received the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for a biography about President Andrew Jackson. He is a regular on MSNBC and other television programs. He has been criticized for his reckless rhetoric in past segments like calling Trump supporters as people operating with “lizard brains.” However, he is an articulate and passionate speaker on contemporary as well as historical issues. I expect he would generate great interest and debate in any campus appearance.

The Nov. 3rd event was supposed to honor the inauguration of the university’s new president, Beck Taylor.  However, various students and groups objected, citing his recent appearance at a Planned Parenthood event in Texas. At the speech, Meacham spoke of the perils facing democracy by conservative movements and the recent anti-abortion law. While many are likely to take offense, the speech was civil and passionate about what he sees as the defining values of our democracy.

Nevertheless, he was criticized as someone whose “beliefs and core values do not align with those of Samford University, as it is a Southern Baptist institution.” If that is so, there is all the more reason for the university to host such alternative viewpoints. Students can voice their opposing views in questions or, outside of the event, in protests. Meacham has always struck me as someone who would not shy away from passionate but respectful disagreements.

Pro-life students have been attacked or silenced repeatedly on campuses (here and here and here and here and here). This is an example of the same intolerance from the opposing side. Rather than cancel Meacham, why not invite a speaker with the opposite viewpoints or arrange a forum for the expression of such views? Universities are supposed to be forums for a diversity of values and views. This cancellation is inimical to that defining intellectual mission.

85 thoughts on “Speaking Event for Historian Jon Meacham Cancelled at Samford University”

  1. Speaking at an Inauguration is a “perk” for both the school and the speaker. It gives the speaker the school’s platform. It is not the same as disinviting someone from a symposium or conference.

  2. Conservative cancel culture exists just as surely as liberal cancel culture. That’s because we are reaching a point where both conservatives and liberals refuse to hear opposing views – or in this case refuse to have someone with opinions on other matters speak on a campus. It’s absurd. I was in college in the 1980’s and we welcomed opposing views. If there were people offended by the speaker then they would just stay home. No one is forcing students to attend. One of the main ideas of college is to explore and investigate and learn about multiple points of view. But they all want safe spaces where they only look in the mirror.

      1. Many do not share your beliefs Many believe that an undeveloped blob of tissue incapable of independent life isn’t an “unborn child” with the same rights as a fully-developed person capable of life on its own.

        1. WoW!, Interesting to see Satin’s aid out on a Sunday of all days.

          I’m sure you must have the Black Drapers closed tightly on this day.

          As I understand it “Lets go Brandon” recently dined with the Black Pope of Darkness in which fresh yet to be born babyback ribs were served. Can you gives us all any further insight to their dining experience?

    1. Absolutely conservatives have been know to attempt to suppress contrary views.

      But that has not been commonplace for a long time – it is comonplace today with the left.

      The florida example being used, does not involve anyone being fired. It does not even involve being silenced.
      It merely involves not being free to work for the state concurrently with working against it. the professors can choose which side they want paid by.

      While I would side with free speech even in this case,
      Trying to compare that to getting professors, and comedians, and news anchors fired – or worse threatening them with violence is ludicrous.

      There is no modern republican equivalent of macarthyism. There is a broad democratic equivalent.

      There is no parity here.

      “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
      Matthew 7:5

    2. Montage says:

      “Conservative cancel culture exists just as surely as liberal cancel culture. That’s because we are reaching a point where both conservatives and liberals refuse to hear opposing views – or in this case refuse to have someone with opinions on other matters speak on a campus.”

      I agree that both sides do it. But there is a limit to what is an acceptable view. We should ignore and shun certain views, e.g., Q-Anon. We will not always agree on what views are so intolerable that they should be ostracized, but that is beside the point. The point is that human beings should discriminate against completely irrational and/or truly odious views.

  3. Once again, I must point out the reality that public “schools,” “colleges,” and “universities” are no longer institutions of learning. All of these institutions must now be properly classified as Leftist Indoctrination Entities or “LIEs” for short. LIEs exist today primarily to program and indoctrinate impressionable minds with Marxist and Leftist ideology and propaganda, which are nothing more than lies. Independent thinking is not only attacked and ridiculed, but is punished. So, of course there is “intolerance” to opposing views. It won’t be long for the time when thinking of any kind will be outlawed and punished as it was during the Inquisition. Today’s graduates of LIEs don’t know what the Inquisition was, but the brillianst Galileo once called before the Inquisition and was found guilty of heresy. (Galileo observed the moon and found Venus had phases like the moon, proving it rotated around the sun, which refuted the prevailing doctrine that the Earth was the center of the universe.) Galileo was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1633, but because of his age and poor health, he was allowed to serve his imprisonment under house arrest. When the Globalists have completed their goals, any genuine thinkers caught thinking at the LIEs will be put in concentration camps or executed–not placed under house arrest.

    1. “It’s the [communist teachers unions], stupid.”

      – James Carville
      _____________

      You’ll be the last to know.
      ____________________

      “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”

      – Vladimir Lenin

  4. Anonymous says:

    “I don’t know why ‘lizard brain’ is looked on so dis-favorably…unless it’s the right’s reluctance to identify with their tactical success at utilizing advertising’s ability to utilized fear and greed to sell product. Donald Trump is a master at using this to play all media like it’s a tabloid. So does Fox News…”

    How true.

    Turley first criticized Meacham’s remark in an article on Fox News:

    “It is impossible on NBC, however, to refer to Trump voters without some derisive or insulting precursor. Meacham did not disappoint his audience.

    “I think Trump did himself good with his base tonight,” Meacham said. “The question for America is how big that base is. There is a lizard brain in this country. Donald Trump is a product of the White man’s, the anguished, nervous White guy’s lizard brain.”

    Meacham was referring to a primitive part of the brain in psychological literature: “Many people call it the ‘Lizard Brain,’ because the limbic system is about all a lizard has for brain function. It is in charge of fight, flight, feeding, fear, freezing up, and fornication.”

    Of course, even with the lead held by Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in the polls, roughly half of this country still supports Trump (or at least rejects Biden, who Meacham has endorsed). That is a lot of lizard people.

    What is striking is that Meacham is supposed to give what NBC, MSNBC and PBS present as neutral, scholarly analysis. But his comment about Trump supporters having lizard brains captures why conservative or independent voters view the networks as biased and gratuitously insulting.

    Indeed, these comments show that networks like NBC are now focusing entirely on Democratic and liberal viewers — writing off half of the American people as gag lines.

    I have written repeatedly about how the media have helped Trump by fulfilling his narrative of open bias. Meacham shows that they are now enjoying this too much.

    There appears to be no point that is too insulting or raw for national commentary so long as it is an attack on Trump or those who support him.

    I did not vote for Trump, and I have regularly criticized him in columns and blog posts. However, I have watched the stereotyping of Trump supporters at media conferences for years. It suggests that roughly 63 million people in this country who voted for Trump in 2016 are knuckle-dragging racists.

    The media have simply never tried to see any nuance or gain any insight into what is motivating Trump supporters. It is easier to dismiss them as a whole as racists and lizard people.

    Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin has declared that Trump supporters as a whole are racists. That common stereotyping of Trump supporters is uncontested, even as the media object to Trump’s generalizations about other groups.

    Miami Herald columnist and NBC analyst Leonard Pitts wrote a column headlined: “No, it’s not the economy, stupid. Trump supporters fear a black and brown America.”

    The narrative has moved beyond Hillary Clinton’s description of Trump supporters as a “basket of deplorables” to now portraying all Trump supporters as open racists.

    “Make America Great Again” hats are denounced by academics as the symbol of “modern day hitlerjugend” and hate speech.

    What is most distressing about Meacham’s comments is that he is an incredibly talented and insightful academic. But it is hugely popular to degrade Trump’s supporters on television. That can create its own conditioning reward system.”

    ———————
    https://jonathanturley.org/2020/10/26/we-recently-discussed-how-vanderbilt-professor-and-historian-jon-meacham-gave-a-quiz-in-his-course-on-the-2020-election-in-which-students-were-asked-was-the-constitution-designed-to-perpetuat/

    I DON’T necessarily disagree with Turley’s criticism of the MSM, but he NEVER holds Fox News, his employer, to the same standard of decency and objectivity.

    If Turley could just honestly look in the mirror and ask himself: Is there anything that I could find fault with the diatribes I hear from my Fox News colleagues, Carlson, Levin, Hannity, Ingraham, Bongino, Watters, etc., when they excoriate Leftists?

    Does Turley seriously think that it is NOT “hugely popular to degrade” Leftists on Fox? Of course not.

    It is not enough for Turley to concede:

    “I did not vote for Trump, and I have regularly criticized him in columns and blog posts.”

    To be impartial and objective, Turley must criticize the talk show hosts on Fox, Newsmax and One America Network for REPEATING, SPREADING and LEGITIMIZING Trump’s bigoted and racist statements which he has regularly criticized in his columns!

    Unless he does so, he is a hypocrite. And I am going to keep saying it UNTIL he does.

    1. I’m not reading all that.
      I’m really happy for you, though.
      …or I’m sorry that that happened to you.

    2. Supporting Trump is supporting what he stands for: nothing of value. As a person, he is a chronic, habitual liar, he is a failed businessman, having bankrupted 6 businesses after his father was no longer able to prop him up financially, his current “business empire” is failing and only survives on loaned money, he is a serial womanizer and brags about getting away with sexually assaulting women because of his “fame”, is on his third marriage (in which he publicly disgraced his former stripper wife by cheating on her with nude models and a porn star), he praises White Supremacists, calling them “fine people”, he calls African countries “sh*thole”, calls brown people “rapists and murderers, animals, vermin and criminals”, and, according to Dr. Brix, his incompetence and downplaying of the risk of COVID is directly responsible for 130,000 unnecessary deaths. He is a draft-dodger and demeaned John McCain, a true American hero and patriot, because McCain wouldn’t go along with repealing Obamacare. Trump and Republicans still have no plan to replace Obamacare, which provides health care access to over 20 million Americans, and is saving lives. Trump promised something better at lower cost–just another of his hundreds of thousands of lies. Because of his massive ego, he still refuses to accept the will of the American people and continues spreading the Big Lie that a landslide victory was stolen from him. And, the dupes believe it, despite all evidence proving that he lost by a landslide. Americans turned out in record numbers to vote him out. He can’t accept this.

      And, yet , people support this creature to the point of cult worship. Why? It’s surely not because he did such a wonderful job of President after cheating his way into the White House with help from Russian hackers. His incompetence and attempts to bully foreign leaders turned around the successful economy created by Barak Obama from the ashes of Bush’s presidency into the worst recession since the Great Depression. His only legislative “achievement” was passing a tax cut mostly benefitting the super-wealthy. He allowed a pandemic to get out of control by deliberately lying about the dangers and pushing for unproven treatments like Hydroxycholorquine, which the disciples continue to defend. Because of the pandemic, the country was mostly shut down for over a year, and now, we have supply chain delays because so many workers went to other jobs, factories closed down and consumer demand went down. Those things didn’t happen overnight and cannot be reversed overnight. And, the Republicans are trying to blame Joe Biden for this, instead of Trump, whose incompetence in handling the pandemic was the cause.

      Because the facts of Trump’s lack of personal integrity, lack of character, nonexistent leadership skills and amazingly bad track record cannot explain his popularity, there must be another reason. Other than the cynical wealthy who don’t want to pay their fair share of taxes and businesses that don’t want to comply with environmental and consumer protection regulations, his supporters are mostly rural, non-college educated white people. Social scientists tell us they fear losing their perceived position of superiority to educated people, especially women, people of color, and those from south of the border. They religiously tune into Hannity, OAN, News Max, Breitbart and other alt-right sources for facts, and believe it when they are told that “mainstream” media is lying to them and is out to get their hero. That is the very definition of propaganda, and they fall for it. They are literally immune to facts–for instance, they are told there wasn’t any insurrection, so they believe it. They are told Ashli Babbitt, who got shot to death after participating in an invasion of the Capitol and was in the act of breaching the Speaker’s Lobby, is a murder victim, so they believe it. They believe that tens of thousands of dead people voted for Biden, that ballots were faked, brought in from China, that millions of people voted several times, that machine counting totals were manipulated from China, and other lies about nonexistent voter fraud, and they believe it, even though investigations prove these are lie. Their fat hero will not go away or shut up, but keeps stirring the pot, reveling in the attention, holding rallies, stirring up the faithful, and lying, constantly, because of his narcissistic personality disorder. They are blind to the fact that he is nothing but a braggadocious liar and loser who has never succeeded at anything in life other than “The Apprentice”, which was nothing but a fake reality TV show. America is in trouble because there are so many blind disciples who are willingly immune to the truth because they feel threatened by college educated people, women and minorities. They believe the lies about the vaccine being questionable, that the CDC and the FDA can’t be trusted, and don’t understand or believe the fact that these lies are being told for political, not scientific or public health reasons, to keep the pandemic going, in an effort to thwart Joe Biden’s presidency. The economy cannot fully recover until we have better herd immunity, which Republicans are trying to prevent.

      Turley is indeed a hypocrite by using his forum to carry water for Trump and the Republicans while ignoring the big picture, and refusing to criticize Republicans.

      1. Natacha,

        I agree with everything you said except this part:

        “Turley is indeed a hypocrite by using his forum to carry water for Trump and the Republicans while ignoring the big picture, and refusing to criticize Republicans.”

        Turley did criticize Trump a lot and called out his dishonesty as well as other lying Trumpists. It is certainly true that Turley never expressly denounced the Big Lie during Trump’s time in office and will not do so now despite Trump and most Republicans continuing to spread the Big Lie. It’s despicable.

        Turley has a conflict of interest with his Fox News employment. His is a delicate balancing act- maintaining his academic credibility with his professional colleagues while at the same time serving to reinforce the ideological and false narratives of his Fox bosses. He serves Fox not by voicing its lies, but rather, by discrediting the MSM. What is most interesting is that he is not allowed to criticize the advocacy journalism at Fox’s competitors on the Right, namely, Newsmax and One America Network!

        Poor Turley. You gotta feel for the guy.

        1. Dear Jeff S: Turley only provides tepid criticism of Trump or Republicans on small matters so that he can say, with a straight face, but fingers crossed, that he HAS criticized Trump and the Republicans who have now fallen into lock-step behind a wannabe dictator. He is attempting to create the fiction that he is neutral, but he is unflagging in his criticism of Biden, posting some slanted piece criticizing him or a member of his administration almost every day. He also saves his sharpest criticism for Trump detractors, falling in line with whatever slop is put out on Fox, and, as you pointed out, he also contributes to the narrative that MSM can’t be trusted. He constantly criticizes the WaPo, the NYT, MSNBC, CNN and others. He ignores the big picture, the Big Lie, and the unprecedented misconduct of Trump–not just the reasons he was impeached twice, but also, his constant lying, his unprecedented refusal to concede, refusal to go away and let his successor govern without his interference, and he has tried to undermine both of the impeachments of Trump. Turley is well-paid, but still just a flunkie, an errand-boy with a J.D. diploma. And, no, I don’t feel one bit sorry for him, because if he were a man of integrity, he wouldn’t use his platform or credentials to defend the most-unfit person ever to cheat his way into the White House, someone who is an avowed racist, misogynist, xenophobe, Islamophobe and constant liar. He made his choices. I don’t know how he could teach at university and support someone like Trump. It’s not a matter of freedom of speech, but bedrock principles that if you believe in them, you live by them. Universities all have missions and values statements that almost universally declare that the university stands against all kinds of discrimination. Turley defends someone whose supporters include Neo-Nazis, Q Anon, the 3 percenters and the Proud Boys. Trump is nothing but a narcissistic pig, loser, liar, racist, misogynist, xenophobe and Islamophobe, all of which are un-American, and Turley is his mouthpiece.

          1. Natacha says:

            “Trump is nothing but a narcissistic pig, loser, liar, racist, misogynist, xenophobe and Islamophobe, all of which are un-American, and Turley is his mouthpiece.”

            I don’t disagree, but Turley is not his mouthpiece- that is too strong. He is not a Trumpist collaborator, but he is no hero either.

            “Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject.” — John Stuart Mill

            Turley’s unconscionable silence in condemning the Big Lie and his failure to take a public and courageous stand against Trumpism like Liz Cheney will haunt him in his later years when his grandkids ask him what did he do to confront it.

            He will draw a deep breath and pause a long time and then remind them he was an employee of Fox News during that time….

            1. I’ve wondered throughout my career how attorneys rationalize away the reality of the things they do–like slanting the truth, like downplaying certain facts and exaggerating or outright lying about others, and to blame victims. I think for most of them, it’s about the money, plus the fact that I believe they dissociate themselves from truth of the situation.For example, I read an appeal yesterday in a child molest case in which the perp had intercourse with his 13 year old step-daughter while his wife, the child’s mother, was working the night shift. The child got pregnant, and he tried to coerce her to blame her pregnancy on a male classmate, but the truth eventually came out. She and her mother decided an abortion was the best solution, but that carried with it significant emotional distress that this girl will carry for the rest of her life. She bears no fault or blame for the situation she found herself in. She and her mother decided that the alternative would have been even worse–bearing her step-father’s and siblings’ father’s baby and then either raising it or placing it for adoption. The perp’s attorney argued that the State had failed to prove that his client KNEW the girl was only 13 years old. So, this attorney tried to help his client get away with raping a 13 year old girl who was forced to get an abortion, by offering a stupid and lame argument that somehow he didn’t know the child’s age, even though she lived with him and his wife for years. The appeals court didn’t buy the argument, but I would have been ashamed to even try to pull something like this. If he had gotten away with it, the child would have been forced to see this creep, or to hide or leave home every time he came around to pick up her half-siblings for parental visitation. He got the maximum sentence, BTW, which was upheld on appeal.

              Then, there’s Turley, who uses his credentials to carry out the mission of Fox News, which is to attack Democrats, especially women of color and minorities, to defend the 3 Trump appointees to the SCOTUS, even though their appointments by someone who cheated his way into office are controversial and their beliefs are far-right of most Americans, to breathe credibility into things like the fake “Hunter Biden laptop scandal”, to downplay Trump’s incompetence, to ignore the Big Lie and the insurrection, and to ignore the outrageous conduct of Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Josh Hawley, all while trying to nurture the image of neutrality. Trump’s “presidency” is a stain on American history for so many reasons, and we continue to live with the aftermath of him and his ego while our economy and our public health try to recover. Turley never addresses the the unprecedented attack on public health agencies for political reasons or the fact that, despite losing in a landslide election and multiple failed attempts to change the truth, Trump still won’t go away or stop lying. Turley’s role in supporting this person is shameful.

              1. Natacha says:

                “So, this attorney tried to help his client get away with raping a 13 year old girl who was forced to get an abortion, by offering a stupid and lame argument that somehow he didn’t know the child’s age, even though she lived with him and his wife for years.”

                As an attorney, you are not paid by your client to do the right thing; you are paid to jealously defend his interests. However, a lawyer cannot perpetrate a fraud on the court by lying on his client’s behalf. Defending a guilty person serves the general interest by keeping the government honest by making it prove its criminal case against the defendant and making sure that the government did not violate the defendant’s Constitutional rights or break any laws in its prosecution. It’s hard for a lay person to appreciate this important function of the legal system.

                As far as Turley is concerned, I cannot dispute your criticism of Turley. If only he could be made to answer for his conduct. After all, he is entitled to defend his silences. But the fact that he won’t do so, or even make an effort to account for his inaction leaves me with the impression that he can’t defend it except for the obvious reason- I work for Fox!

                Somewhere I recall reading that he is working on a book (I don’t think he has ever authored one). If he is, he will certainly promote it on his appearances on Fox. This free advertising (they ALL do it) may be an ulterior motive for his employment. After exploiting this opportunity to cash-in, I suspect he may depart Fox, but which mainstream network will embrace him after he sullied his reputation at Fox?

                1. I agree that an attorney is required by the Rules of Professional Conduct to zealously pursue his/her client’s case, but insulting the intelligence of the Court and the jury by trying to claim that the child molester didn’t know the age of his victim who lived under his roof for years crosses the line. Who would believe such bull? Her innocence and vulnerability were part of his attraction to her. Maybe there wasn’t any other way to defend this person, who also had an extensive criminal record, BTW, which figured into his maximum sentence, plus the fact that he stood in loco parentis to the child and tried to get her to frame an innocent classmate to cover up his own crime. She was an eighth grader.

                  In Turley’s case, he’s not an attorney defending his client in a court proceeding–just a paid “expert in the law” who has become a political pundit since going on the Fox payroll. He does try, unconvincingly, to nurture an aura of neutrality, and that’s my beef with him. He can’t have it both ways. He can’t constantly attack the Democrats but ignore the Big Lie and the effect on this country. Pick a side and stick with it. Turley has picked a side–Trump–but he still wants to try to keep his finger in, I guess, by criticizing Trump for, by way of example, lying about his father being born in Germany. I think he knows that the day will come when Trump has been so thoroughly disgraced that only the Neo Nazis, the 3 percenters and Proud Boys will be his supporters and the Republicans will turn on him. However, I doubt that mainstream media will have him back any more than Hannity could ever hope for a job in mainstream media.

                  1. Natacha says:

                    “Pick a side and stick with it. Turley has picked a side–Trump–but he still wants to try to keep his finger in, I guess, by criticizing Trump for, by way of example, lying about his father being born in Germany.”

                    I believe that Turley knows that Trump is a fraud, but he works for Fox so he can’t say so if he wants to retain his job. I was doing some research and I discovered this interesting article about Turley from over 20 years ago:

                    https://www.gwhatchet.com/1998/08/24/as-seen-on-tv/

                    Certainly, not the same Turley then as today who appears on Fox for less than 5 minutes simply to buttress legally whatever Hannity, Carlson or Ingraham are lying about.

                    Indeed, Turley’s Fox sell-out is not going over well at GW:

                    https://www.washingtonian.com/2020/12/17/jonathan-turleys-trump-takes-are-not-going-over-very-well-at-gw-law/

                    This shaming at GW might explain why Turley is pre-occupied with defending every Conservative academic anywhere from any repercussions for anything they have said! He may be feeling the heat himself.

                    Turley tries not to pick a side in order to hold himself out as objective and impartial. Though he has criticized Trump, Turley never criticizes Fox’s journalism nor Newsmax nor OAN. So he has unmistakably picked a side when it comes to the media. I suppose he would simply say that he is just doing his Fox job because he has no other credible explanation for his blind spot.

                    I anticipate that he will eventually have to take a side on Trumpism. The day will come when those at Fox will demand that he endorse the Big Lie publicly or claim his criminal prosecution is a “witch hunt.” You are either with them 100% or against them. He won’t do either, and he’ll depart quietly. However, he will never wash off the stench of having had a hand in enabling Fox’s lies by giving them legal cover, by profiting from Fox’s marketing of rage, and by his craven refusal to condemn Trump’s Big Lie.

                    Despite his life long advocacy that good speech is the best antidote to bad speech, when it mattered most to do so, Turley spoke not.

  5. Samford is a Baptist school. Meacham is a leftist. They had every right to cancel him. He should have never been scheduled to speak there in the first place.

    1. Turley disagrees with you that “He should have never been scheduled to speak there in the first place.”

    2. Someone at the University failed abysmally to Vet the list of potential invited speakers. That’s really dumb.

    3. Leftism aside, Meacham subscribes to the Pro-Choice religion that denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to a negotiable asset, not limited to the wicked solution.

      1. Being pro-choice isn’t a religion, and anyone who supports the agency of pregnant woman recognizes that the decision is hers about whether she wants to continue her pregnancy.

        You consider that “wicked.” Sounds like you’re the one with religious beliefs about it.

        1. Can I support the agency of the baby?

          Get something straight. SCOTUS has ruled the baby is indeed afforded constitutional protection from being murdered. Its up to the people to decide. The constitution provides zero guidance to Judges .

          1. How does a being that doesn’t have thoughts — such as an embryo — have agency?

            SCOTUS hasn’t said that abortion is murder. It hasn’t said that embryos and fetuses have any rights. It has said that in deciding when abortion should be legal, they have to weigh the pregnant woman’s rights against the state’s rights. The state’s rights include regulating medical procedures to some extent for the patient’s safety and proscribing abortion after viability unless the mother’s life or health are endangered.

            1. A woman has an absolute right to the control of her own body.

              But your own questions make clear the obvious – that a fetus, an embryo are NOT her own body. They are a foreign body.

              While the woman has an absolute right to have that alien thing removed from her body – even if that results in its death.
              That does NOT mean she has the right to demand or ensure its death.

              As to your other assertions – do women have the right to kill puppies because they are inconvenient ?

              It is probably unwise for the state to take an interest in trying to save the life of an early preganancy. but it is free to do so – it it wishes.

              Is it a womans absolute right to not be pregnant – even at 9 months.

              It is NOT anyone’s right to force the death of a pregnancy.

              1. “a fetus, an embryo are NOT her own body.”

                I never said they are. However, during pregnancy, it is inside her body, attached to her body, using her body, and affecting her health.

                “do women have the right to kill puppies because they are inconvenient ?”

                An irrelevant question. Puppies are not living in a woman’s uterus, getting oxygen through her respiratory and cardiovascular systems, getting nutrition through her gastrointestinal and cardiovascular systems, affecting her health, …

    4. “Samford is a Baptist school. Meacham is a leftist. They had every right to cancel him. He should have never been scheduled to speak there in the first place.”

      Good for you! You are disagreeing with Turley’s premise that Little Brother censorship is just as bad as Big Brother. You agree with me! Imagine that.

  6. (OT)

    The National Archives (NARA) has responded to Trump’s attempt to invoke executive privilege in preventing the Jan. 6 Select Committee from obtaining relevant written records from NARA.

    Politico’s description: “According to the National Archives, the former president has sought to block about 750 pages out of nearly 1,600 identified by officials as relevant to the Jan. 6 investigation. Among them are hundreds of pages from “multiple binders of the former press secretary [Kayleigh McEnany] which is made up almost entirely of talking points and statements related to the 2020 election,” according to the court filing. The filing details are the clearest indication yet of what Trump is trying to withhold from congressional investigators seeking information about his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and his activities on the day that a mob of violent Trump supporters stormed the Capitol and disrupted the peaceful transfer of power.”

    The case is Trump v. Thompson, and the full response from NARA is in the case docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60654980/trump-v-thompson/

  7. We have more than enough free speech for the Marxists. They outnumber us 100 to 1.
    The first Marxist was Satan the Devil. And we have been paying for his lies ever since.

      1. Yes, I believe Satan exists. Why? The Bible says so, Jesus said so, early Church fathers wrote about it and taught it, and we see his involvement in the affairs of mankind. These are principally matters of faith. Biblical texts concerning him include I Chronicles 21:1, the entire book of Job, Psalms 109:6, and Zechariah 3:1-2 in the Old Testament, and from the New Testament reference is made in Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:13, 4:15; Luke 10:18,13:16; Luke 22:3, 21; John 13:27; Acts 5:3; 26:18; II Corinthians 2:11, 11:14; II Thessalonians 2:9; Revelation 2:13, 12:9, Chapter 20.

        Quoting from Marx’ drama “Oulanem”:

        And they are also Oulanem, Oulanem.
        The name rings forth like death, rings forth
        Until it dies away in a wretched crawl.
        Stop, I’ve got it now! It rises from my soul….

        Yet I have power within my youthful arms
        To clench and crush you [i.e., personified humanity] with tempestuous force,
        While for us both the abyss yawns in darkness.
        You will sink down and I shall follow laughing,
        Whispering in your ears, “Descend, come with me, friend.”

        Marx is only Satan’s mouthpiece when he utters in his poem “Invocation of One in Despair” the words, “I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above.” in his poem “Invocation of One in Despair”, he writes:

        I shall build my throne high overhead,
        Cold, tremendous shall its summit be.
        For its bulwark — superstitious dread.
        For its Marshall — blackest agony.

        The words “I shall build my throne high overhead” and the confession that from the one sitting on this throne will emanate only dread and agony, remind us of Lucifer’s proud boast: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13).

        In his poem, “Pale Maiden”, Marx writes:

        Thus heaven I’ve forfeited, I know it full well.
        My soul, once true to God, is chosen for hell.

        In his poem “Human Pride”, Marx admits that his aim is not to improve the world, reform or revolutionize it, but simply to ruin it and enjoy it being ruined:

        With disdain I will throw my gauntlet full in the face of the world,
        And see the collapse of this pygmy giant whose fall will not stifle my ardor.
        Then will I wander godlike and victorious through the ruins of the world
        And, giving my words an active force, I will feel equal to the Creator.

        Holding antipathy in his heart for Christianity and fully partnered with Satan (by his own acknowledgment), I would say Marxism was the first publishing of the Satanic Bible (with regrettable apologies to Anton LaVey).

        Much more is written in Pastor Richard Wurmbrand’s book (circa 1967): Voice of the Martyrs.

        1. Gilreath says:

          “Yes, I believe Satan exists. Why? The Bible says so, Jesus said so, early Church fathers wrote about it and taught it, and we see his involvement in the affairs of mankind. These are principally matters of faith.”

          You can say that again. Thank god, there is Reason and Science to confront blind Faith.”

    1. Lon says:

      “We have more than enough free speech for the Marxists. They outnumber us 100 to 1.
      The first Marxist was Satan the Devil. And we have been paying for his lies ever since.”

      On second thought, don’t bother giving me the thesis of that book you recommended. After this remark of yours, I know all I need to know about you….

      1. Scared? If you were truly secure in your Atheism you wouldn’t be. “Perfect love casts out all fear.”
        The “Born Again’s” were wrong about one thing: They thought that Trump would win the last election,
        or that Biden would be removed. I know He won’t. America will be destroyed but the Indian will get it back.
        Perhaps in another 400 years a new Columbus will return to discover the North American wasteland.
        Listen to “Your On My Mind Like A Song On The Radio,” by Al Steward.

  8. “Meacham has always struck me as someone who would not shy away from passionate but respectful disagreements”… Yup, lizard brains is certainly passionate and respectful… Please, give me a break

    1. JmjUSA says:

      “Meacham has always struck me as someone who would not shy away from passionate but respectful disagreements”… Yup, lizard brains is certainly passionate and respectful… Please, give me a break”

      Noboby’s perfect. Turley is looking at the man’s life work and not cancelling him on the strength of this one untoward remark.

  9. “maybe he doesn’t want to give an opinion before hearing what the SC has to say.”

    That’s possible, but doubtful. He often gives opinions on cases before SCOTUS rules on them, and he has written 3 columns that touch on SB 8 in the last two months:
    “’They Tell Me I Shouldn’t But . . .’: Sotomayor Calls on Law Students to Oppose the Texas Abortion Law”
    “The Appeal of Chaos: How Politicians and Pundits are Misconstruing The Supreme Court’s Order on the Texas Abortion Law”
    “Supreme Court Rejects Injunction of Texas Abortion Law . . . Media Erupts With Roe Obituaries”

    But in all 3, he’s avoided discussing the substance of the law, and he hasn’t even acknowledged the existence of the latest legal suits, including the fact that SCOTUS granted cert and chose to hear oral arguments instead of deciding the case on their “shadow docket” again.

    Again:

    SB 8 poses a peril to our constitutional democracy. If SB 8 is constitutional, then states can moot ANY constitutional right they wish, simply by outsourcing enforcement to the public. For example, New York could allow citizens to sue any gun owner for $10,000 despite the owner having a constitutional right to gun ownership. SCOTUS will consider “Whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions,” and we had all better worry if their answer to that is “yes.”

    Do you have anything to say about the legal issues in US v. Texas and in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson?

      1. With few exceptions, it bans abortions after embryonic heart cells develop and begin to pulse (what they call a “fetal heartbeat,” even though it may not yet be a fetus and even though the heart may not have formed yet, depending on the gestational age).

        The text says “Sec. 171.204. PROHIBITED ABORTION OF UNBORN CHILD WITH DETECTABLE FETAL HEARTBEAT; EFFECT. (a) Except as provided by Section 171.205, a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child as required by Section 171.203 or failed to perform a test to detect a fetal heartbeat.”

        I bet you know what “prohibited” and “may not” mean. But knowing you, you will not be able to admit your claim was false.

        Do you have anything to say about the legal issues in US v. Texas and in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson?

        1. Anonymous says:

          “But knowing you, you will not be able to admit your claim was false.”

          This is the heart of the problem with Trump and his Trumpists. They will NEVER admit they were wrong except perhaps at the point of a gun.

          They can’t. The only way to successfully lie is to NEVER admit you have UNLESS there is “smoking gun” evidence, and even then they will insist that it is “fake.” For Trumpists, the ONLY way to prove that they are lying is if they themselves admit it….. so they don’t!

          1. As I said: knowing you, you will not be able to admit your claim was false.

            And apparently your answer to “Do you have anything to say about the legal issues in US v. Texas and in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson?” is an implied “no.”

            1. Why are people required to say something – just because you want them too ?

              With respect to the specific case you cited – it was decided properly according to existing precedent.

              The same precedent that resulted in the dismissal of all those election challenges.

              That president is wrong – standing is relevant to private disputes. It is relevant to as applied challenges to laws.

              But challenges to the facial constitutionality of any law must be allowed to proceed on their merits.

              As a separate issue the structure of the TX law that has protected it from constitutional review is a huge mistake.

              Like Alynsky’s rules for radicals – if accepted as a legitimate tactic – it works as well for the left as the right.

              1. “Why are people required to say something – just because you want them too ?”

                Who said that they’re required? Not me.

    1. Texas only changed the threshold of legal human sacrifice a.k.a. reproductive rites. This does not affect a woman’s right to abort a life in self-defense. That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception, a woman and man have four choices, and still six weeks. Baby steps.

  10. I hope Turley will address this significant challenge to freedom of speech:

    “The University of Florida barred three faculty members from testifying for plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging a voting-restrictions law enthusiastically embraced by Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), which activists say makes it harder for racial minorities to vote, in a move that raises sharp concerns about academic freedom and free speech in the state. The public university said the three political scientists — Daniel A. Smith, Michael McDonald, and Sharon Wright Austin — could pose “a conflict of interest to the executive branch” and harm the school’s interests if they testified against the law signed by DeSantis in May. “As UF is a state actor, litigation against the state is adverse to UF’s interests,” school officials said …”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/10/30/florida-voting-rights-desantis-lawsuit/

    1. The minority leaders and experts testify to a disparity of ability between people… persons that does not exist other than in diversity including racism and other class-based bigotry that has been sustained in handmade tales.

  11. Turley says “Meacham spoke of the perils facing democracy by conservative movements and the recent anti-abortion law.”

    SB 8 in Texas DOES pose a peril to our constitutional democracy.

    If SB 8 is constitutional, then states can moot any constitutional right they wish, simply by outsourcing enforcement to the public. For example, New York could allow citizens to sue any gun owner for $10,000 despite the owner having a constitutional right to gun ownership.

    Turley still hasn’t really addressed the substance of SB 8 or the newest cases, even though SCOTUS granted cert and will hear oral arguments in two cases on Nov. 1 — before the arguments in Dobbs, and an amazingly fast pace, with oral arguments scheduled less than 2 weeks after granting cert.

    In US v. Texas, they agreed to hear “Whether the United States may bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit Texas Senate Bill 8 from being enforced,” which is a different question than whether the underlying law is or isn’t constitutional.

    In Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, which will be heard at the same time, they will rule on “Whether a state can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.”

    We had all better worry if their answer to the second one is “yes.”

    Have to wonder why Turley is so silent about these important legal issues. Will he finally write something after the oral arguments on Monday? Given that he asks “why not invite a speaker with the opposite viewpoints,” maybe he should invite a guest columnist whose views are very different than his own.

      1. I am wholly irrelevant to Turley’s choices (except in minor cases, where he responds to an email I’ve sent).

        Do you have anything to say about the very significant legal issues that SCOTUS will hear on Monday?

        1. Gee, maybe he doesn’t want to give an opinion before hearing what the SC has to say. Why don’t you write your own blog, then you can address every topic under the sun…and we’ll be watching in case you missed one!

            1. Again, the Trump cult only wants to hear what they what to hear, nothing more. Their world of alternative facts are not to be disturbed.

              1. Fishy, are YOU open to hearing other opinions and viewpoints? Or not so much?

                What’s funny is how you actually believe that the information you consume is NOT mostly ‘alternative facts’…..honey, YOU are in a cult. If you haven’t figured that out yet, shame on you Fish for Brains.

                1. I never thought that you could be that truly stupid, I was wrong. I read anything and everything I get my hands on and yet you amazed me on how willfully ignorant you want to be, and are. You’re a small minded little man who thinks he knows better and has no interest in learning anything that does not fit into your narrow minded views.

    1. “Have to wonder why Turley is so silent about these important legal issues. Will he finally write something after the oral arguments on Monday? Given that he asks “why not invite a speaker with the opposite viewpoints,” maybe he should invite a guest columnist whose views are very different than his own.”

      If you look back in Turley’s archive, you will notice many guest columnists. There has been just one guest columnist in recent memory (not including Darren’s show-and-tell contributions). Probably because Turley is hard-pressed to find a respectable academic willing to contribute here in light of Turley’s disgraceful Fox employment to legitimize its false narratives and bolster its advocacy journalism as well as to discredit Fox’s cable competitors.

      https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/12/05/what-the-heck-happened-to-jonathan-turley/

      How the great have fallen.

  12. If more on the left are censored maybe they’ll understand that free speech is for all. All conservative and liberals alike should be allowed to speak freely without outbursts from any group.

    1. The 1st Amendment only prevents the government from restricting speech in the public square. Not only are private companies, private universities, individual citizens, etc. free to restrict speech on their own property, their right to do so is protected by the 1st Amendment.

      Do you support their 1st Amendment right to restrict speech on their property, even if you wish they wouldn’t?

      1. Small flaw in your logic….the Students do not “own” the College or University.

        Colleges and Universities are tasked by custom to offer the widest possible exposure to all points of view….per Turley.

        It would seem then the growing popular surrender of choice and ever narrowing of views being allowed and heard….grossly harms the quality of education being offered and demanded.

        Any way you slice it….and no matter which viewpoint is being suppressed/censored/rejected/banned….it results in the dumbing down of that particular college or university and its student population.

        Stupid is as stupid does a great American once said in a Hollywood film.

        The catalyst to all of this is the ever growing of intolerance of our society to engage In polite disagreement on rhetorical speech and discussion of issues.

        One side doing it against the other….no matter who it is that is being banned….is dead wrong and should be condemned.

        Hear the speaker out…and offer challenges to whatever is said….and be able and prepared to prove others wrong by the use of facts, data, science, law, ethics, and reason.

        1. “Small flaw in your logic….the Students do not “own” the College or University.”

          I never assumed or suggested that they do. I agree with you that they don’t. Your assumption that that’s a flaw in *my* logic is mistaken, since I never assumed or suggested they do.

          However, Samford University is a private entity. It’s a 501(c)(3) with a board, a university president, trustees, … It has a 1st Amendment right to cancel the speech.

          I agree with you that it’s counterproductive for educational institutions to refuse to host thoughtful speech that students, faculty, staff and/or administrators disagree with. Better to host it and also counter it with other thoughtful speech. But what’s wise is a different question than what’s legal.

          1. Perhaps a solution would be to encourage students to “vote with their feet”, i.e., if they object to the speaker, simply do not attend the lecture. Or hand out printed opposing view statements outside the venue.

            1. Edo says:

              Perhaps a solution would be to encourage students to “vote with their feet”, i.e., if they object to the speaker, simply do not attend the lecture. Or hand out printed opposing view statements outside the venue.”

              Exactly! Boycotting is an effective expression of one’s freedom of speech. Unfortunately, I don’t recall Turley EVER suggesting boycotts. His EXCLUSIVE remedy to bad speech is *more speech* even if no one is listening.

    1. Meacham has a right to speak in the public square. He doesn’t have a right to speak at a private institution like Samford. Samford has a 1st Amendment right to disinvite him.

      1. Agreed. Still, you have to give credit to Turley for criticizing a Conservative campus discriminating against a Liberal or Moderate speaker. I believe that this makes the second time in so many weeks that Turley has see fit to document Conservatives disinviting a speaker- within their right- but I’ll advised to do so.

        I am anticipating Turley’s forthcoming law review article so that his entire free speech theory is hopefully laid out and defended. I still am waiting to hear if he draws a line between illegitimate private discrimination of good speech and legitimate private cancellation/de-platforming of very bad speech, e.g., Holocaust denialism.

        1. Jeff,

          My impression (from reading a variety of his columns) is that he believes that educational institutions should host both speech that he personally considers good or neutral and speech that he personally considers bad, and he distinguishes between them only by noting that he strongly disagrees with the latter. I doubt that there’s any law review article forthcoming about this, because it really isn’t a contentious legal issue: private institutions have a legal right to cancel talks, and even public ones can cancel talks if there is good reason to think that it will lead to violence between protesters.

          If you want to skim the titles of relevant columns he’s written, do a text search on “academia” here: https://jonathanturley.org/category/free-speech/ — that will take you to the titles of the subset of articles that are about free speech in academia. You’ll need to scroll to the end to load more titles. Or you could search on specific institutions, such as UC Berkeley.

          FWIW, here’s a relevant talk he gave in 2018 on “The Rise and Fall of Free Speech in the West” at a 9th Circuit conference; given the audience and length, presumably the talk would be a more serious consideration of the issue than he presents in his blog:

          1. I can’t tell if I am talking to one anonymous or 2 or 3! Thanks for the link. I will listen to it with great interest.

            I understand what you are saying. A law professor teaches by raising hypotheticals for his students to compare with a different set of facts in a particular decided legal case. Turley, to my knowledge, has never written an article addressing a case of speech so vile that he would approve of refusing to listen to it altogether. I have to believe that there is speech (not including speech NOT protected by the First Amendment) that is so beyond the pale that Turley would agree that it should be ignored and pointless to subject it to good speech.

            Seemingly, he does not wish to consider such a hypothetical because it would make an exception to his mantra that the only solution to bad speech is more speech, never discrimination. Once he concedes, however, that there are exceptions to that rule, he looses his argument. Then it is a matter of arguing what kind of speech falls into that exception. And the exception will swallow the rule since people will always argue and disagree what speech falls into that exception.

            But the reality is that there is speech, e.g., Q-Anon, that is utterly irrational which has been discredited and dismissed and need not be re-considered. Turley needs to concede that fact hypothetically or better yet with a real-world example. Which is not to say that Q-Anon conspiracy theorists can’t freely talk amongst themselves without interference; but, rather, Turley would not complain but instead applaud their being disinvited speaking anywhere rational people gather to hear speeches!

          2. Anonymous,

            I listened to that 2018 speech which I presume was before he joined Fox because the MC did not mention his working for Fox among all the mainstream outlets he has worked for over the years.

            I stand by the previous points I responded to your post containing this clip. I look forward to hearing your reply.

            This speech was a rehash of his free speech articles. He makes the claim that more speech will eradicate bad speech WITHOUT questioning whether it is true. He concedes at the end of his lecture that millennials are losing faith in free speech. If more good speech has not convinced them otherwise; I doubt more good speech will convince members of cults like Trumpism to believe the election was not stolen. Hell, Evolutionism hasn’t convinced millions of Evangelicals who still believe in Creationism.

            I am not saying that people should not be free to think what they want; I am simply denying that more facts will dissuade people form believing falsehoods. People of faith cannot be reasoned with because they will not be persuaded despite all evidence to the contrary. It takes faith not to believe the evidence of one’s eyes and ears.

            Turley does not address shaming, shunning and ostracizing as freedoms of speech to counteract people who are immune to good speech to disabuse them of their racist, anti-Semitic or conspiracy-driven beliefs. Instead, he is pre-occupied with highlighting anecdotes of professors losing their jobs for posting on social media, etc.. While he concedes that employers may be fired for engaging in free speech on the job due to their employment contract, he does not explore whether some of these employment contracts may have morality clauses which permits termination for placing the employer in a bad light on account of their off-duty hateful speech.

            Moreover, as I have noted before, he does not provide a single example of a professor being fired for such vile speech which he believes IS justifiable. Are we to believe that there is no hateful speech short of inciting imminent violence which is actionable by an employer?

            Big brother censorship is intolerable because it entails prison and a fine; Little Brother censorship means losing your reputation and possibly your employment (provided you violate your employment contract), But you NEVER loose your freedom; possibly money only if you have defamed someone. That is why there should be two different standards of justifiable censorship!

            He took only 2 questions neither of which challenged his propositions. He needs to engage in a 2 hour debate and take pointed questions from a free speech contrarian in order to expose the weaknesses of his arguments.

            Thanks for sending me that link.

  13. Turley rightly chastises Meacham for calling:

    “Trump supporters as people operating with “lizard brains.”

    However, Turley ignores the rhetoric of Rightwing Radical Michael Savage who wrote a book entitled, “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_Is_a_Mental_Disorder

    Not to be outdone, Mark Levin, Turley’s Fox brethren, wrote a book entitled, “American Marxism” referring to Leftists.

    What do we hear from Turley about these Trumpist rage provocateurs? You guessed it!

    Crickets…..

    1. The people on this thread who constantly attack a piece for what it doesn’t say are missing the point. Criticize what’s written, not what you think should have been written. Better yet, write your own column, but don’t keep rewriting his — you just don’t have the knowledge, skill or talent.

      1. Again and again your argument falls flat if you’re telling somebody else to shut up and only listen to what you want to be said.

        1. Fish wings says;

          “Again and again your argument falls flat if you’re telling somebody else to shut up and only listen to what you want to be said.”

          Yes

      2. Giocon1 says:

        “Criticize what’s written, not what you think should have been written. Better yet, write your own column, but don’t keep rewriting his — you just don’t have the knowledge, skill or talent.”

        Why don’t you respond to my questions and address my contentions instead of instructing me what I should write about or telling me to get lost?

    2. Beyond name familiarity with Michael Savage and that he has worked (and perhaps currently still is) in radio, I can comment no further. Mark Levin’s current book (a New York Times bestseller by the way) in its many hundreds of pages is a scholarly attempt to trace modern liberal thought with its Marxist historical roots. It is not the work of a “shock-jock” as Michael Savage is often called. Books with provocative titles and covers are often brilliant marketing ploys to sell the book — not so much to accurately describe the contents therein. “Don’t judge a book by its cover” seems to apply here.

      1. Gilreath says:

        “Don’t judge a book by its cover” seems to apply here.”

        I won’t throw away good money to buy Levin’s bad book. It’s a NYT’s best seller only because Levin promoted it for 3 hours a day on his radio show for months!

        I don’t need to read it though because I listen to his show regularly, and he reads from his book as if it were The Gospel.

        He calls ALL Leftists “American Marxists,” and he is incensed that more of his Fox colleagues will not follow suit. He will not, of course, name those Fox colleagues who refuse to smear Leftists as Marxists.

        Turley is one of them. Bless his heart! Regrettably, we don’t know Turley’s opinion of “American Marxism” because he self-censors about his Fox colleagues. It stands to reason if Turley had something COMPLIMENTARY to say about the book, he would not hesitate to say so.

  14. American Lion was a very good read IMO.

    Let him speak Samford. Not allowing him to speak suggests that you are not firm in your beliefs

  15. They are not “pro life” students. Matheus are pro control students. “Pro life” groups don’t support life giving policies or even life protective policies.
    Having said that I don’t believe any one should be physically attacked because of their views.

    1. Yeah, I guess that “physically attacked” thing doesn’t apply to a child in the womb…
      Do that & Banned Parenthood parade..
      Do it to a dog & go to jail for life..

    2. Pro-life groups stand for women and men’s dignity and agency, and to mitigate the progress of diversity (i.e. negotiable human classes).

Leave a Reply