The response to the leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade has unleashed a torrent of outrage on the left. While many are calling for marches and sweeping new legislation, some are focused on calling out the justices in the majority for alleged “perjury” or “lying” in their confirmation hearings, particularly Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch. In reality, they did not lie in testimony in referencing Roe as established precedent. The suggestion of perjury is utter nonsense.
The draft opinion written by Justice Alito declares “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) declared that some of the conservative justices “have lied to the U.S. Senate.” Sen. Susan Collins (R., Me.) publicly decried what she claimed were false or misleading answers on Roe by Justices Alito and Kavanaugh.
No less a legal figure as Stephen Colbert declared “They knew, that if they were honest, they wouldn’t get the job. So they lied, which I think is perjury. But what do I know? I’m no Supreme Court justice, I’m not a good enough liar.”
In recent hearings, some of us have criticized Democratic members for demanding assurances on how nominees would vote on particular cases or issues. However, both Democratic and Republican nominees have largely stuck to rote responses on Roe and other cases to refuse to make such commitments. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously insisted, there would be “no forecasts, no hints.”
The problem is that politicians often display a type of selective auditory attention problem: they hear what they want to hear. Indeed, confirmation hearings are highly choreographed on both sides. Each senator seeks to secure a thirty-second clip showing that he or she secured assurances or trashed a nominee.
For pro-choice senators like Sen. Collins, it is essential to have some answer that would support a claim that, despite seemingly antagonistic judicial philosophical views, a nominee would not likely overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Notably, however, these same senators have supported the Ginsburg Rule, which is customarily cited to refuse to make promises or predictions on votes. Indeed, I have long been a critic of the rule because it is used to refuse to even discuss judicial philosophy. So nominees now just restate elementary points of judging without saying anything of substance.
Most of those crying “perjury” do not cite the specific perjurious language.
Take Alito. Many of us said when Alito was nominated that he was presumptively opposed to the logic of Roe. After all, in 1985, Alito wrote as a Justice Department lawyer that the Constitution does not contain a right protecting abortions.
However, appearances had to be observed.
The late Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), asked him if he agreed with that statement today and Alito responded in classic confirmation nonspeak. He first repeated the facts (by noting that he was a Justice Department attorney at the time) and then went rote: “Today if the issue were to come before me. The first question would be the question that we’ve been discussing and that’s the issue of stare decisis. And if the analysis were to get beyond that point, I would approach that question with an open mind.”
That says absolutely nothing but how every jurist approaches case precedent. You begin with the touchstone of stare decisis and the preference for preserving precedent. You then approach the countervailing question with “an open mind.”
When Sen. Dick Durbin (D., IL.) pressed him on whether Roe is “settled law,” Alito responded again by stating the obvious:
“Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. So, it’s been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged in a number of occasions. And I discussed those yesterday. And the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision–sometimes on the merits; sometimes, in Casey, based on stare decisis. And I believe when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value as stare decisis…”
That again says nothing. Indeed, it was decided in 1973 and that is a long time ago. Plessy v. Ferguson was on the books for 58 years before it was overturned in 1958. It was also supported by stare decisis but it did not matter.
He never pledged to preserve Roe. Even if he did, he never promised that he would never change his mind on such cases.
Then came Gorsuch.
I testified in the Gorsuch hearing and he was widely viewed as a Roe skeptic. After all, he wrote a book that declared the “the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”
When asked about that statement in the context of Roe, Gorsuch responded: “Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
When Durbin asked if he accepted that, Gorsuch stated another truism: “That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, senator, yes.” In other words, he accepted that Roe is the established precedent. That is about as earthshaking as saying he accepts that the Supreme Court sits in Washington. Likewise, then-senator Al Franken asked Gorsuch if he viewed Roe as “settled law.” Again, that is like asking for the location of the Supreme Court. Gorsuch declared “It is absolutely settled law.”
Then came Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh also stated the obvious in calling Roe “important precedent” and noting that the Court strives to preserve precedent. When pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Cal.), he again said that such cases are “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis” and “one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.”
Kavanaugh succeeded in repeating nothing but verbal nullities.
The one exception to this pattern of confirmation nonspeak was Barrett. At the time, I wrote that Barrett was refreshingly and surprisingly honest about her judicial philosophy and approach to Roe. She specifically rejected the claim that Roe constitutes “super precedent.” Barrett said that this term “define[s] cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category.” (Notably, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson took the same position against Roe as super precedent.).
What is most striking about these claims that the justices lied is that most of these critics insisted during their confirmations that they were clearly antagonistic toward Roe. Nothing that they said changed any minds on their judicial philosophy as hostile to the logic of Roe.
Notably, liberal nominees have used the same language about cases like District of Columbia v. Heller, supporting gun rights. They acknowledge that it is a settled precedent but that does not guarantee that they will vote to preserve it. Indeed, they have voted to limit or overturn past cases with which they disagree. No one called for perjury prosecutions or denounced them as liars.
None of this is likely to matter in the echo-chambered news today, particularly with the approaching midterm elections. That is why Bismarck warned that “people never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war or before an election.”
413 thoughts on “No, Justices Did Not Commit Perjury in Their Confirmation Hearings When Asked About Roe”
Turley- “He never pledged to preserve Roe. Even if he did, he never promised that he would never change his mind on such cases.”
That was my thought. A promise to decide any issue a particular way could not later bind a justice when that issue is actually before the Court. His judgment must be unfettered.
Mr. Turley, I saw you on a news program about the leak. I seemed to remember you saying something to the effect. When they find the staff person (Clerk for one of the justices?) that leaked the opinion. They could / would be disbarred. Would that hold true if the leaker was a Justice? If the justice is removed, will their be another nomination to go before the senate for confirmation?
When they find the staff person (Clerk for one of the justices?) that leaked the opinion. They could / would be disbarred. Would that hold true if the leaker was a Justice? I
There is no requirement that Supreme Court Justices be lawyers.
I read the first 20 pages of the leaked Alito draft. What struck me was the outlining of the lies in the Roe v Wade decision.
When Donald Trump endorses a candidate they usually win. Right now his record is 55-0.
They did, in fact, commit perjury.
When asked for their view of Roe v. Wade – they lied.
It’s as simple as that.
They not only lied by omitting their real thoughts on Roe v. Wade, but they lied by uttering misleading statements.
All of which was under oath, with the intent to deceive the US Congress & the American people.
They’re crooks and should be disbarred, sorry.
They said it was established precedent. That doesn’t mean they agree with it. And if a ruling has precedent does not mean it can’t be can’t be overturned. In this case they believed over turning a bad and incorrect ruling was more important than following precedent. Precedent does not mean a ruling is etched in stone. So they did not lie.
Absolute rubbish. It’s not simple. When you’re a judge you cannot rule on your feelings you must rule on the law They spoke of the law and those were their answers
More likely it is time for a Constitutional centrist coalition to start forming as the independent real Democrats the ones who do support that portion of our Constitutional Republic. Same with Republican independents to take over and kick the sociallst fascists out. Using an amendment to put teeth in the oaths of office. The trump episode showed it can be done. Obama and Biden show it should be done.
Didn’t say how…up to the constitutionaln coalition.
Jonathan: GOP Senator Susan Collins has egg on her face. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both will vote to overturn Roe despite their assurances to her that the landmark abortion decision was “settled law”, “precedent on precedent”. Barrett didn’t make the same assurances because she had openly shown disdain for women’s reproductive rights–per her allegiance to the right-wing Catholic sect she belongs to. Collins has had to walk a thin line between the long-time GOP platform pledge to overturn Roe and Maine that has one of the nation’s strongest abortion rights legislation. Collins is going to have a hard time explaining her votes to conform both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to her constituents back home.
And no one should be shocked that SC nominees, like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, lie to get confirmed. If Kavanaugh could lie about his sexual misconduct with Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez what makes us think he would be truthful about his judicial philosophy? While they pay lip service to precedent neither Gorsuch nor Kavanaugh would have been even nominated had they expressed their support for Roe. They were both selected, along with Barrett, because they were chosen by the Federalist Society, funded by religious extremists who have their knives out for Roe. So Alito’s draft opinion was predictable.
True to the “originalist” legal theory Alito says the right to abortion is not found anywhere in the Constitution and is not “part of the Nation’s history and traditions” so Roe and Casey must be over turned. While Alito says overturning Roe will be a one-off and not affect other important cases involving personal liberties don’t bet on it. Using the same “originalist” rationale the conservative majority could strike down Loving (the right to marry someone of a different race), Obergefell v. Hodges (protecting same sex marriage) and Griswold v. Connecticut ( the right to contraception). just to name a few. So “originalism”, once just a fringe legal theory espoused principally by Scalia and Thomas, is now gospel for the 5-4 conservative majority.
The arch of progress generally bends toward equality. Since the early 20th century there has been significant progress in women’s rights and now the rights of the LGBTQ community. But progress doesn’t go in a straight line upward. Now the SC wants to turn back the clock to a time when it was a crime to have an abortion–to force pregnant women to have a “back alley” abortion. Rich women will always be able to get an abortion–quietly, out of sight with the best medical care. The women who will suffer the most under Alito’s decision will be the poor and people of color. But then that is the whole point, isn’t it?
The arch of progress generally bends toward equality
Yet your ilk has committed for the past 5 decades to destroy our institutions, and use minorities like the poor, Hispanics, blacks, Asians, immigrants, gays/lesbians and all others identities as props for your party talking points. No one buys them anymore.
By the way, be a sport and tell us the gain in net worth of Democrats since their reign of terror began with COVID. Here is some help in case you cant find that data at CNN+
Both Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson gave more to Democrats than to Republicans.
Of the big three vaccine manufacturers, Pfizer leads with the most money spent lobbying members of Congress during the pandemic. According to OpenSecrets, Pfizer spent nearly $11 million lobbying the federal government, including Congress, in 2020. The nonpartisan research organization also reported that Johnson & Johnson spent $7.9 million on lobbying in 2020. Moderna, which started lobbying the federal government in 2019, has spent $420,000 on federal lobbying in 2021, an increase from $280,000 in 2020.
The dims are for the little guy.
Not very independent for a which us it socialist leftover
No where did Dennis say they were a Democrat; you’re just embarrassing yourself with red herrings and strawmanning
People of color, yeah, these are the folks Margaret Sanger really had in mind.
Could you shorten that comment? It won’t fit on a bumper sticker. Thanks.
I’m waiting to hear that Supreme Court justices and their families have been threatened by the democrats.
I think there is a non-negligible risk of one or more assassinations. This would preserve Roe/Casey and through Biden nominations change the balance on the court. The leak of the draft increased this risk by showing the decision months before it is actually made. As I said before, if I were Roberts I would accelerate the process. I hope the Justices have good protection.
That screeching and whining by Elizabeth Warren is unbecoming a US Senator. She is setting the tone for the others, the ANTIFA, BLM, etc., “do what I demand or there will be hell to pay”.
Next she’ll double down like JB and “wanting to fight with one of them in back of the school”. Shame on her, poor little baby.
The “screeching and whining by” Kavanaugh was unbecoming a Justice. Shame on him, little baby.
The lying by Christine “Fear of Flying” Blasey Ford was unbecoming of both herself and the Democrats who knew she was lying but shined it on.
There’s no evidence that she was lying.
You believe she was lying in spite of not having evidence.
Afraid to fly, the frequent flyer lied.
Beyond that, her own father supported Kavanagh’s nomination. He didn’t believe his daughter’s tale. Kept his support for K non-public, and made no comments either way. Christine is a liar, but you are a “progressive” and you love liars.
Thanks for letting me know that you’re a troll who’ll pretend to read my mind.
My dad is a d-bag, too. Face it, Jake, you’ve got nothing.
And Feinstein leaking, then dropping the Christine Ford document just before the committee vote is as low and calculating as a person could get. And Kavannaugh was directly and purposely insulted by the committee democrats, the complete the opposite of the angry whining Warren expressed over nothing against her person.
And there was the “Spartacus” moment in the hearing to add to the drama.
And why do all the leaks and drama queens come from the Liberal left? Don’t they have any decency?
John: The BLM head in New York (Hawk Newsome) threatened “riots, fires, bloodshed” over BLM issues. In a TV interview with Fox News, he stated, “We will burn down [the old system] until you give us what we want.” (Don’t have a cite, but anyone can search-engine it.) Your characterization of Warren is soooooo good.
Agreed on Lizzie Borden Warren. No substance just a money vacumn.
Getting tired of the predictable Democratic deluge of lies, hysteria and accusations every time something doesn’t go their way. What they’re really afraid of is the voters — they’re afraid that if the abortion issue is sent back to the state legislatures, where the people can actually have some input, the people may decide to restrict or ban it. But that’s the process in a democratic society. The Democrats are afraid of democracy.
Didn’t you get the message? This isn’t a democracy, and if you really want to send the abortion issue back to where people have the most input, send it to the individual and let it be their choice. Problem solved.
Abortion: removing the embryo or fetus from the womb.
Fetus: generally distinguished as an unborn human at the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.
If a Fetus is defined as human, is that not life?
Until there is an accepted legal consensus of when Life does begin, there will be continued turmoil.
NOW YOU KNOW – THEY STOLE THE ELECTION
The SCOTUS “leak” was stolen by the very same communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) who stole the 2020 election.
The “leak” theft could not be beneficial to conservatives; it could only be deleterious to conservatives.
Understanding the SCOTUS “leak” theft, facilitates understanding the 2020 election theft.
“The end justifies the means.”
– Sergey Nechayev, Communist Revolutionary.
“The end justifies the means.”
– Sergey Nechayev, Communist Revolutionary.
Unfortunately with these people the end doesn’t justify the end.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, their 2013 survey of women who got late-term abortions gave the following reasons:
“Raising money for the procedure and related costs” – 65%
“Not knowing about the pregnancy” – 45%
“Difficulty securing insurance coverage” – 41%
“Trouble deciding about the abortion” – 40%
“Not knowing where to go for an abortion” – 38%
“Difficulty getting to an abortion facility” – 27%
“Disagreeing about the abortion with the man involved” – 20%
According to the 2011 Abortion Surveillance Report issued by the Centers for Disease Control, black women make up 14% of the childbearing population, yet obtained 36.2% percent of reported abortions. The same surveillance report issued for 2019 showed that black women had 38.4% of the abortions.
Why do these data matter? The first data group, reasons, show that late-term abortions are NOT for “heath/life of the mother,” as often claimed by proponents. The second data group, race, illustrates an aspect of abortion that proponents are typically very reluctant to discuss.
The data that matter are the American fertility rate of 1.6, a “death spiral,” and the population being imported of foreign citizens.
The data that matter and the death and burial of America.
Why would a woman choose to have kids with a misogynist like you?
If there were fewer misogynists and better support for families (family leave, childcare support, …), more American women might choose to have kids.
Why do women suddenly need all of my money? Wasn’t that way until lately.
Real women aren’t looking for your type of whimp.
With respect to pregnancy, “late-term” means after 40 weeks. Essentially no abortions occur at that point.
You shouldn’t claim that the study you refer to was a “2013 survey of women who got late-term abortions.” It was not.
It was a study of women who received abortions at 16 sites “with a gestational limit beyond 20 weeks. … These facilities were distributed across the United States: three in the West, three in the Northeast, four in the Midwest and six in the South. … The analyses below include the 272 of these women who received a later abortion and the 169 who received a first-trimester abortion. The average gestation at time of abortion was 22 weeks among the later abortion group and eight weeks among the first-trimester group.”
Why are you lying and saying “The first data group, reasons, show that late-term abortions are NOT for “heath/life of the mother,” as often claimed by proponents”? 22 weeks is NOT “late-term” or anywhere close to late-term. They’re mostly talking about abortions performed late in the second trimester, often prior to viability. They identify only 1 in the third trimester: “A 26-year-old Latina woman in New Mexico, who had an abortion at 28 weeks’ gestation, said, “I was afraid of my boyfriend finding out, and I went [to the abortion clinic] once he was in jail.””
Did you simply never bother to read the study itself?
That would be Latinx, you racist transphobe.
Jake, apparently you have difficulty admitting your mistakes. You made false claims about that study, but you cannot bring yourself to own up to it.
Geez! The man’s nom de plume is “Anonymous.” Pretty much says it all, right?
You said “With respect to pregnancy, “late-term” means after 40 weeks. Essentially no abortions occur at that point.”
The average pregnancy in the US is about 40 weeks so yes, few abortions occur after that time. With respect to abortion, ‘late term’ generally describes abortions taking place during the third trimester or after about 24 weeks.
Medical professionals do not use the phrase “late term” for third trimester abortions.
And few of the abortions in the study that Jake J cited occurred in the third trimester.
Heat, but not much light. Two factoids:
– Half of all abortions are done with drugs, i.e. non surgically. This percentage has been rising for years.
– White women’s abortion rate is 6.6/1,000 vs. black women at 23.8/1,000. (Both numbers are for non-Hispanic. This is because the share of Hispanic blacks is much lower than for Hispanic whites, so including Hispanics would render the black and white numbers non-comparable.
Why do these data matter? First, because no matter what the “ban” states do, half the abortions will still happen. Yes, the “ban” states will ban the drugs too, but it won’t work. Second, the racial data show the major liberal blind spot with respect to abortion.
Thank you for your learned, thoughtful commentary Prof. Turley.
“Abortion is not a solution for Native women”
Jan 23, 2020
“In my tribe, the Osage people (the Wah-zha-zhe) have a strong tradition of family and of protecting the unborn. In the preamble to our tribal constitution we “hold sacred: Justice, Fairness, Compassion, Respect for and Protection of Child, Elder, All Fellow Beings, and Self.” This is “in order to preserve and perpetuate a full and abundant Osage way of life that benefits all Osages, living and as yet unborn.”
We as a people do not see our people as divided by an arbitrary barrier such as birth. All are sacred. At all points in time and at all points in human development, from conception to natural death. The Navajo have a similar tradition. In fact, the Navajo Nation Supreme Court has ruled that “We take judicial notice that the child, even the unborn child, occupies a space in Navajo culture that can best be described as holy or sacred, although neither of these words convey the child’s status accurately. The child is awę́ę́ t’áá’íídą́ą́’hiną́, alive at conception, and develops perfectly in the care of the mother (Navajo Nation Supreme Court, EXC, Inc. v. Kayenta Dist. Court, No. SC-CV-07-10 2010).”
Thank you for educating me. I think your philosophy is beautiful.
Just think, if democrats had just left the Missouri law alone and lived with their “safe, legal and rare” slogan and not bothered to sue, this would have never made it to SCOTUS.
This week was a bad week for Warren to stop sniffling glue.
She is called Senator Liealot for a reason
Incoherent and Hysterical.
The product of the 19th Dumbmendment.
There are few or no quotations to be obtained regarding the position of the Founders on the vote of women.
Entitled Americans vote.
Women make Americans.
The Founders, apparently, determined discussions of women’s suffrage to be incoherent and hysterical.
America is vanishing and dying due to the “death spiral” of the American fertility rate engendered by the 19th Dumbmendment (the population is imported of foreigners).
Incoherent and hysterical.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
You’re the one who’s Incoherent and hysterical, misogynist George.
Who me, a misogynist?
Lieawatha on warpath:
Besides all that she’s a crooked used car dealer!
She sold a guy a Red Cherokee & when it was delivered it was a damn White Suburban!
If only this country were made up by a majority of people who are critical liberal thinkers like Turley and not people of blind religious faith. In such a country, a Constitutional amendment would pass enshrining a right of privacy.
I’ve got a neighbor I don’t like who is in dire need of abortion.
The “stage,” or trimester, of life being irrelevant, would your “country” pass a right of “privacy” that I could have with him?
I pity your poor wife.
“That dudn’t make any sense.”
– George W. Bush
He’s an extreme misogynist, and I wouldn’t wish that on any woman. Hopefully he isn’t married.
I wouldn’t know. I skip over his posts though I do get a general sense that he is “slightly advanced” if you catch my drift.
I generally skip his comments too, as they’re extremely repetitious and extremely bigoted, and his mind is closed, so it’s pointless to waste much time on him, but I’ve read enough of his comments to know that he advocates that women should not have the right to vote, and he wants to treat women as nothing more than breeding stock. Anyone who holds those views is an extreme misogynist.
I think he’s mentally ill, but I don’t assume that he’s elderly.
My wife skips my comments too.
But she still makes me dinner after she gets off the phone with our kids and grand kids – they just love me!
If only this country were made up by a majority of people who are critical liberal thinkers like Turley and not people of blind religious faith I.i.e. disjointed triggered dim children(mt dem) friends.. In such a country, a Constitutional amendment would pass enshrining a right of privacy. FIFY CLOWN BOY.
FIFY? I don’t know this acronym.
You are right about one thing. I was a class clown in my youth. I have always rebelled against authority figures like Trump.
Ratifying an amendment is nearly impossible.
That’s why the successors of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln used every form of brute force and corruption they could to ram through and rubber stamp not ONE but THREE wholly unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments,” without a quorum, and with a gun held securely to America’s head.
That is the reason those preposterous aberrations are consummately illegitimate to this day.
Good luck with that George. I admire your persistence.
Karl Marx agreed with you. He admired “Crazy Abe.”
“RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD”
“Crazy Abe’s” communist successors started with Karl Marx’s “Reconstruction Amendments.”
“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”
– Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837
“Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”
– Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848
“The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”
– Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864
Karl Marx’s letter of congratulation and commendation to Abraham Lincoln: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
Don’t give me your sanctimonious BS about caring for the unborn. Unless you admit you care about the unborn, but not the born. If you did care about actual human life, why don’t you support significantly increased health care for pregnant women and women and children after the birth of the baby? Don’t give me your BS about “life is sacred”, because your actions on how your want your tax dollars spent say you would rather send soldiers to die overseas and that new mother have health problems after birth rather than actually save lives. Stop the BS.
Thanks for your self-righteousness. But one request: Could you boil that down? It won’t fit on a bumper sticker.
DID YOU SAY ABORTION?
“WESTERN BABY CRISIS: FIRST-TIME GERMAN MOTHERS NOW OVER 30 YEARS OLD ON AVERAGE”
“The average age for first-time mothers has hit an all-time record in Germany, climbing to over 30-years-old in 2020 according to figures published by the nation’s statistic agency. During the first year of coronavirus lockdowns in Germany, the average age of mothers having their first child rose to an average of 30.2 years old, Destatis reported on Tuesday. The age of first-time mothers has a considerable impact on the total fertility rate of a nation, as older mothers are less likely to have further children. The national statistician noted that this was a over a year older than a decade previously, when the average stood at 29 years old, with the average age increasing consistently through past ten years. In total, there were approximately 360,000 children born to first-time mothers in 2020, of which 182,400 had mothers between the age of 30 and 40 years old. Less than one per cent (2,900) had a mother under the age of 18 and 2.9 per cent (10,500) were born to mothers over the age of 40.”
– Kurt Zindulka
The German fertility rate is 1.5, or certain death of a nation.
“If these predictions are even half accurate, migration will become a necessity for all nations and not an option.” “To be successful we need a fundamental rethink of global politics.” “The distribution of working-age populations will be crucial to whether humanity prospers or withers.”
– Professor, University College London
The 19th Amendment gave America an imperative, attendant nullification of many rights and freedoms of men, women in the roles of men, abortion, and a fertility rate in a “death spiral.”
What more could a nation want?
What will America be without women who make Americans? Answer: A foreign nation comprised of imported foreign citizens.
What kind of country kills itself?
On demand abortion is legal in Germany in the first trimester (12 weeks), after that it is illegal with exceptions only for physical or mental health reasons.
Only 6 countries permit no restriction on-demand abortion up to birth: China, Vietnam, North and South Korea, Canada and United States.
The German fertility rate is 1.54.
Germany is dying.
The fertility rate in Niger is 7.
Niger is growing exponentially.
Nigers will soon be at America’s door.
Barbarians will soon be at the gate.
Comments are closed.