No, Justices Did Not Commit Perjury in Their Confirmation Hearings When Asked About Roe

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.”



417 thoughts on “No, Justices Did Not Commit Perjury in Their Confirmation Hearings When Asked About Roe”

  1. 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?

    1. 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.

      1. No where did Dennis say they were a Democrat; you’re just embarrassing yourself with red herrings and strawmanning

    2. People of color, yeah, these are the folks Margaret Sanger really had in mind.

  2. I’m waiting to hear that Supreme Court justices and their families have been threatened by the democrats.

    1. 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.

  3. 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.

    1. The “screeching and whining by” Kavanaugh was unbecoming a Justice. Shame on him, little baby.

      1. 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.

        1. There’s no evidence that she was lying.

          You believe she was lying in spite of not having evidence.

          1. 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.

            1. Thanks for letting me know that you’re a troll who’ll pretend to read my mind.

      2. 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?

    2. 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.

  4. 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.

    1. 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.

  5. 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.


    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.

    1. “The end justifies the means.”

      – Sergey Nechayev, Communist Revolutionary.


      Unfortunately with these people the end doesn’t justify the end.

  7. More data.

    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.

    1. 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.

      1. 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.

    2. 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?

        1. 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.

      1. Anomaly,

        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.

        1. ashtRay,

          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.

  8. 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.

  9. “Abortion is not a solution for Native women”

    Navajo Times

    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).”

  10. 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.

  11. This week was a bad week for Warren to stop sniffling glue.


    1. 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

      1. 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!

  12. 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.

    1. 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?

        1. He’s an extreme misogynist, and I wouldn’t wish that on any woman. Hopefully he isn’t married.

          1. 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.

            1. 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.

              1. 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!

    2. 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.

      1. 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.

    3. 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.

        1. Karl Marx agreed with you. He admired “Crazy Abe.”


          “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:

  13. 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.

    1. Thanks for your self-righteousness. But one request: Could you boil that down? It won’t fit on a bumper sticker.

  14. OT



    “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?

    1. 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.


      1. 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.

  15. Anonymous, in my youth I met many racist people who were not religious. Hitler and Stalin were not religious but they were racist bigots. Both of these men believed in centralized government just like people in our nation believe in centralized control. Why do Democrats believe that abortion should not be left up to the individual states? It’s because it goes against their belief that all control should be in the hands of the federal government. They couch it in concern for the rights of women but it’s really all about their quest for more power. Abortion is not the only issue where they call for centralized control. It’s all just a part of their mission.

    1. More alt-right discipleship anti-Democratic rhetoric: 70% of Americans support a woman’s right to choose, and many of these are Republicans. It’s not just Democrats who understand that rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights apply to all citizens, regardless of where they live. States cannot pass laws that abridge rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights: if you have a “right’, no state can take that right away from you, and the duty of the SCOTUS is to strike down laws that interfere with rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

      1. Natacha, you are correct. 70% of Americans believe that a women has a right to chose but unlike you believing that an abortion being allowed up to the moment of birth 65% believe abortion should not be allowed after the first trimester. Just a little piece of information that you always leave out. The 65% who don’t think that abortion should be allowed after the first trimester do so because they believe that after the first trimester a baby that is being aborted is being killed. It seems that your alright with it.

        1. You are nothing but a despicable liar: I NEVER said that abortion should be allowed up to the moment of birth–I’ve always said that I agreed with the holding in Roe, which limits abortion to the point of fetal viability. You just make things up to attack me because you cannot come up with facts or argument to counter those expressed by me.

      2. Tell me where in the constitution that abortion is a given right . And while you think about democrats standing up for womens rights tell me why they allow males to par take in womens sports and compete against females . And that is equal rights for women ?

        1. “. . . a given right . . .”

          “Given” by whom?

          Your view of a “right” is monstrously dangerous. That which can be “given,” can be taken.

      3. NUTCHACHA,

        In fact, there is no “woman’s right to choose” – to choose homicide (i.e. human-cide), understanding that human life begins after 24 hours of fertilization, and that to end life is to kill.

        Your criteria for homicide are locus and methodology of sustenance; no matter, homicide, or human-cide, is murder.

        Your hysterical and incoherent comment assumes no prevailing law, no fundamental law – whatever you want, you get, you must be provided – alternatively, you must be crazy, you’re like “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, you recognize, acknowledge and obey no statutory or fundamental law, you believe yourself an omnipotent and tyrannical, despot and dictator.

        “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” – 10th Amendment.

        No right to abortion is enumerated or rationally presumed under the 9th Amendment, and the power to legislate with reference to abortion is not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor is it prohibited by it to the States, therefore, it is reserved to the States, or to the people.

        Only States have the constitutional power to legislate related to abortion.

        Please cite the Constitution wherein a right to abortion and/or a right to homicide is provided.

        Your statements are nothing more than egregiously wrong and erroneous.

        9th Amendment

        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

        10th Amendment

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        homicide noun

        ho·​mi·​cide | \ ˈhä-mə-ˌsīd
        , ˈhō-
        Definition of homicide

        1 : a person who kills another

        2 : a killing of one human being by another

        kill verb

        \ ˈkil
        killed; killing; kills

        Definition of kill

        transitive verb

        1a : to deprive of life : cause the death of

        2a : to put an end to

        1. Abortion is not an enumerated right or presumed right per the 9th Amendment.

          Privacy does not provide the right to end any life – young, middle-aged or old.

          Abortion goes to statutory law legislated by the States or to the people.

          An embryo/fetus is human, or homi, life after the 24-hour fertilization period – if not ended, it will become an adult human being – abortion is murder or homicide of a nascent, very young human being.

          This conversation is incoherent and hysterical.

        2. “Separation of church and state” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution either.

          If you think that the Constitution has to mention by name all of the things it applies to, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the Constitution. The entire point of the 9th Amendment is to point out that there are many unenumerated rights.

        3. “The U.S. constitution says NOTHING about ‘abortion’”

          Neither does it say anything about going maskless or unvaccinated.

          Is civics education really that dead?

      4. Oh please. States like California restrict their citizens’ second amendment rights like crazy. And that’s an explicit right in the constitution, not an invented one like abortion.

        1. “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


    2. Ti T,

      You’ve made some exceptionally stupid arguments in your many comments, and “Why do Democrats believe that abortion should not be left up to the individual states? It’s because it goes against their belief that all control should be in the hands of the federal government” is one of them.

      Roe and Casey put the right to an abortion in the hands of pregnant women, not in the hands of the federal government, with states having a right to regulate for safety.

      1. Anonymous, laws are written and voted on by legislatures. This is the problem with Roe. Roe is simply a decree by the Supreme Court. In our national laws are not made by decree but by a vote of our elected officials. To add a new right an amendment to the Constitution must be put into place. With Roe this has never been done. An amendment process has never been seriously considered by the Democrats because they don’t agree that such things should be decided by the will of the people. They also know that any new amendment would have to reflect the will of the people that says 65% of the people do not believe that abortion should be allowed after the first trimester. They don’t want a solution they just want the issue to make sure that you fill in the little oval at the voting booth correctly.

  16. Democratic politicians want abortion to be allowed up to the moment of birth. Most of the American people believe that abortion should not be allowed after the first trimester. Even one minute before a baby is born it’s life can be extinguished. One minute after birth a baby can be laying on her mothers stomach crying or one minute earlier the baby can never be allowed to cry. The baby has no choice about how her body is treated.

    1. More lies. Democratic politicians do not support abortion up to the moment of birth.

      1. Dearest Natacha, I offer for your studied perusement the following article in The Washington Post listing prominent Democrats who do believe that there should be no restrictions on Abortion. Big names like Warren and Sanders. If your going to defend what the democrats stand for you should at least know what the stand for. I am sure that after reading this article you will be offering your apology for calling me a liar.

        1. Dearest TIT: NONE of those Democrats specifically said that abortion should be allowed up to the moment of live birth. What each of them DID say is that the abortion decision belongs to a woman and her doctor. They didn’t qualify what they said, but that does not translate into support for abortion up to the point of live birth. Nowhere in any official position paper by the Democratic party does it say that abortion should be allowed up to the moment of live birth. More of your alt-right lies.

          1. Alt right alt left it is still socialist fascist. The Natchknocna group are still the chiztosa cerros ridiculosos.

    2. Some Democrats support killing the baby right after birth e.g. Ralph Northam, former VA Governor

      “If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen,” he said. “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

      1. He wasn’t talking about abortion. He was talking about infants born with conditions like total anencephaly that are incompatible with life after birth.


    3. “Democratic politicians want abortion to be allowed up to the moment of birth.

      BS, this is not true and you know it. Why do you spout known falsehoods?

      1. BabyTrump, here is a list of Democrates who support no restrictions on abortion. Natacha said the same thing as you in another posting and I supplied the same link to The Washington Post. Apparently you vote for people who’s positions you know nothing about. Please let me make a suggestion. If you research something about what you say you might not display yourself as someone who is woefully misinformed. How could you not know that prominent Democrats support no restrictions on abortion? Now that you do know will there be any adjustments to your thinking? Will there at least be a thanks I didn’t know that? Will there be any reassessment on who you should support? Perhaps there will only be an “I don’t care what they say they’re still my heroes.”

      1. The View empowers viewers to believe they know more than they do. Whoopie and many of the others might be able to talk fast, but they cannot think more than one level deep. Listening to that crowd makes one believe they are at a party listening to drunk and drugged-out crazies.

  17. Those that oppose abortion say they oppose it because it is taking the life of a potential person. This is a religious definition. Some religions say life begins at birth, some say at conception, Why are we using the religious definition of a person for a law? I thought our constitution does not favor one religion over another.

    1. Nice strawman. Life begins at conception because through science, we know that, that first cell is alive, unique and can reproduce. Nothing to do with religion, but you knew that.

      1. Life begins at conception because through science, we know that…..

        Embryology 101


        “A new life begins with the unification of the maternal and paternal chromosomes upon fertilization.”

        Scheffler K, Uraji J, Jentoft I, Cavazza T, Mönnich E, Mogessie B, Schuh M. Two mechanisms drive pronuclear migration in mouse zygotes. Nat Commun. 2021


        “The zygote, formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being”

        Keith L. Moore. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology [Philadelphia: Saunders], 2008


        “Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the female gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote.

        T.W. Sadler. Langman’s Medical Embryology [Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins], 2006 (10th Edition).


        “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg.”

        Okada et al., A role for the elongator complex in zygotic paternal genome demethylation, NATURE 463:554 (Jan. 28, 2010)


        “Fertilization is the process by which male and female haploid gametes (sperm and egg) unite to produce a genetically distinct individual.”

        Signorelli et al., Kinases, phosphatases and proteases during sperm capacitation, CELL TISSUE RES. 349(3):765 (Mar. 20, 2012)


        “The oviduct or Fallopian tube is the anatomical region where every new life begins in mammalian species. After a long journey, the spermatozoa meet the oocyte in the specific site of the oviduct named ampulla, and fertilization takes place.”

        Coy et al., Roles of the oviduct in mammalian fertilization, REPRODUCTION 144(6):649 (Oct. 1, 2012).


        “Fertilization – the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism – is the culmination of a multitude of intricately regulated cellular processes.”

        Marcello et al., Fertilization, ADV. EXP. BIOL. 757:321 (2013)


        “Human life begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.” “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo).”

        Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003


        Too many more to list

        1. Estovir,

          If you were honest, you’d acknowledge that SOME scientists believe what you quoted and OTHER scientists do not agree.

          It is particularly stupid for a scientist to write The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg,” since a key point of acknowledging that it is a **cycle** is recognizing that there is no “start,” only continued turns in the cycle.

          1. “…since a key point of acknowledging that it is a **cycle** is recognizing that there is no ‘start,’ only continued turns in the cycle.”
            I do not believe I existed, even in amoebic form, two million years ago..

            1. No one suggested that you “existed, … in amoebic form, two million years ago.”

              Once abiogensis occurred, life has been continuous since then. The life cycle for life on Earth has no start other than the original abiogenesis.

              Similarly with mammals: once mammals evolved ~210M years ago, mammalian life has been continuous, with a life cycle that moves through the production of functioning haploid gametes, intercourse and fusion of haploid gametes into a diploid zygote, prenatal development / birth / maturation, production of functioning haploid gametes, intercourse and fusion of haploid gametes into a diploid zygote, prenatal development / birth / maturation, … — over and over. The claim “The life cycle of mammals begins when a sperm enters an egg” is false. Once a species comes into existence there is no “start” to the cycle, only continuation of the cycle and possible extinction.

              Our species is a tiny subset of life on Earth, and no one is suggesting that the beginning of life was the beginning of our species. Once the species came into existence ~200K years ago, human life has also been continuous, with no “start” to the life cycle. Here’s one image of the human life cycle from the UT Austin biology dept: If you

      2. No, Jim, science does not say that “life begins at conception.”

        Here is a good discussion in a developmental biology text:

        Your claim that “that first cell is alive, unique and can reproduce” is misleading. In fact, many fertilized eggs are incapable of reproducing, which is why somewhere on the order of half of all fertilized eggs die prior to implantation. Second, the unfertilized egg and sperm were also alive and unique. Third, even when an egg implants, it might develop into more than one person, or into only part of a person (when eggs merge prior to implantation), so the life of the eventual person cannot be said to have begun at fertilization.


    2. BabyTrump, the laws of our national are built on the religious principle that we should treat our neighbors as we treat ourselves. There are nations were this religious principle is not adhered to. The laws of our nation are permeated with the principles put forth in the Ten Commandments. A man once said that the things of the world belong to the world but man belongs to God. An understanding of what this man said is not to be found in places like China. What this man said is that men were not to be made slaves by other men. A man who understood what a man in ancient times was saying was the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. Perhaps the the word Reverend before his name to you means that we should not consider anything he had to say as having any meaning. You should look further into your inheritance and where the principles that guarantee your freedom come from.

      1. TiT says:

        “the laws of our national are built on the religious principle that we should treat our neighbors as we treat ourselves.”

        If you believe that nonsense, small wonder you swallowed Trump’s lies hook, line and sinker.


            1. You are an old, never married, single Jew who lives alone in Marin County at the following address, so that makes you a homersexual

        2. JeffSiberman, I didn’t say that treating your neighbor as yourself is always practiced. I just said that it is a principle to be desired. I make no claim as to the perfection of mankind by any Republican or Democrat. Instead of speaking to the point you enter your weak “ but Trump “ argument. Instead we could talk about Martin Luther King Jr. being a religious man who believed that all men are created equal based upon his understanding of the teaching of a man born in Bethlehem. But no, you had to get your little gig in. Your mission for the day has been accomplished.

      2. “The laws of our nation are permeated with the principles put forth in the Ten Commandments.”

        Really? What took so long?

    3. @BabyTrump – While some do use that line of reasoning, a more direct line is two-fold. First, how do you explain away our Creator-not-government-given rights which include life liberty and pursuit of happiness? Clearly, none of these are afforded the object of an abortion. Likewise, as Mr. Kennedy asked the most recent nominee: at what point in time do equal protection rights attach? Second, how do you get around the notion that one’s exercise of rights cannot impinge on another’s, and who is to be the advocate for a voiceless in urterio being?

      Since we have not found a mutually agreeable definition to the beginning of life, why do pro-aborntionists insist neither of those points matter? I absolutely agree that any person, regardless of which gender, should have bodily autonomy. However, so too does a fetal body inside of a woman’s body. It is the existence of this second body and its rights that (should) determine what actions the mother can take, because she is no longer taking actions that only affect her body and rights. I thought our Constitution favored principles and reasoning instead of feeling and emotion.

Leave a Reply