“When The Mob is Right”: Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz Supports “Aggressive” Protests at the Homes of Justices

Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz is under fire this week after going to Twitter to defend “aggressive” protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices. Chafetz explained that such mob action should be permissible when “the mob is right.”  For many who have watched the rise of threats and intolerance on our campuses, Chafetz’s comments capture the culture of many on the left. While many were taken aback by a professor seemingly supporting mob action, it is the same “by any means necessary” justification that has been used to justify everything from packing to sacking to leaking on the Court.

While I have opposed arresting the protesters on free speech grounds, I have been an outspoken critic of the doxing and targeting of justices at their homes.

Chafetz tweeted May 8 that “The ‘protest at the Supreme Court, not at the justices’ houses’ line would be more persuasive if the Court hadn’t this week erected fencing to prevent protesters from coming anywhere near it…And before the ‘oh so you support J6 lmao!’ trolls show up: the difference is *substantive*. When the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified. When not, not.”

No line captures the academics supporting this age of rage better than “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified. When not, not.” Presumably, Chafetz will tell us when aggressive protests are warranted and when they are not. It is the same license supporting the censorship of social media.

We have seen similar claims of license for what Nancy Pelosi called this week “righteous anger” and Mayor Lori Lightfoot called a “call to arms.”

Rage can rationalize any means of response. Elie Mystal, who writes for Above the Law and is The Nation’s justice correspondent, for example, declared on MSNBC, without any contradiction from the host, that “You don’t communicate to [Trump supporters], you beat them. You do not negotiate with these people, you destroy them.”

Many have noted that Professor Ilya Shapiro remains suspended for a poorly worded tweet that he posted objecting to President Biden pledging to only consider Black female candidates for the next vacancy on the Court. However, Chafetz mocked the very thought that he could be punished for a tweet supporting liberal mob action. He tweeted out: “Folks can snitch tag @GeorgetownLaw all they want (I’m so sorry, public affairs folks!), they’re not going to fire me over a tweet you don’t like.” (According to news reports, Chafetz limited access to his account after that tweet).

That is very likely correct under the very logic explained by Chafetz. Reckless and even violent rhetoric is tolerated when the targets are conservatives or Republicans in academia. A conservative, libertarian, or even moderate faculty member would make no such assumption today. The common view is that any controversy involving conservative or libertarian or contrarian viewpoints will result in calls for suspension and termination. With comparably few such faculty members teaching on most faculties, the chilling effect is glacial.

The concern over consistent and uniform treatment of speech is long-standing on campuses. In past postings, I have defended faculty who have made an array of disturbing comments about “detonating white people,” denouncing policecalling for Republicans to suffer,  strangling police officerscelebrating the death of conservativescalling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also supported the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

Even when faculty engage in hateful acts on campus, however, there is a notable difference in how universities respond depending on the viewpoint. At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.  We also previously discussed the case of Fresno State University Public Health Professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher who recruited students to destroy pro-life messages written on the sidewalks and wrongly told the pro-life students that they had no free speech rights in the matter.

In all of these controversies, my natural default is in favor of free speech despite the offensive content of the statements. I have the same inclination in this controversy. Chafetz should not be sanctioned for his tweet any more than Shapiro. There has been rising viewpoint intolerance at Georgetown, including retaliatory measures against not just faculty but student writers.

For an academic to support the targeting of jurists and their families at their homes should be shocking but it is not. It is a manifestation of our national rage addiction. Academics are not immune. Indeed, they can rationalize and capitalize on such rage. The means of the mob are justified when “the mob is right” … and many in academia and in politics are eager to embrace the “righteous anger” of the mob.

 

405 thoughts on ““When The Mob is Right”: Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz Supports “Aggressive” Protests at the Homes of Justices”

    1. Great question!!!! Let’s give them some of their own medicine. They won’t change until they are hit in the mouth.

    2. Marxism in Action behinf the attack on SC Justice:
      What else would you expect. His mom didn’t raise him Right.
      His MOM WAS:Chafetz, Janet, a Neo- Marxist and Feminist
      By: Jonathan H. Turner
      In: Encyclopedia of Social Theory
      Edited by: George Ritzer
      Subject:Social Theory (general)
      icon eyeShow page numbers
      Among the gender theorists, Janet Saltzman Chafetz (b. 1942) has not only been a commentator on existing approaches (Chafetz 1988), she has also sought to develop a scientific theory of gender dynamics (Chafetz 1984, 1990). Before entering sociology, Chaftez majored in modern European intellectual history, receiving her BA at Cornell University (1963) and MA at the University of Connecticut (1965). This study of history gave Chafetz a sense of the long duration of social processes as she pursued the study of sociology at the University of Texas, receiving her PhD in 1968. She was influenced by Marxist ideas on class, conflict, and change, as well as by feminist anthropologists writing in the 1970s and 1980s. In pursuing her doctoral work, she specialized in social stratification …

      1. He should be disbarred and Chuck Schumer should be impeached. They are the anti-American Insurrectionists…

  1. It appears that all that is required to teach at Georgetown Law is an exceedingly low IQ and an exceedingly inflated opinion of oneself.

  2. Unsurprising this hack Turley would respond like this, but he should keep in mind that the SCOTUS supports the rights of people to protest outside the homes of doctors, abortion clinic workers, and women who are getting abortions.

    Seems like they’ve all forgotten that there’s no such thing as royalty in the USA. Even a SCOTUS justice is just another citizen and doesn’t have “extra bonus rights” not to see protests outside their homes.

    Hypocrisy knows no bounds these days, eh?

    1. There is no Federal Law against doing that Blunderdog. There is a Federal Law against this . Quit talking through your hot dog.

      1. You idiot. There’s a federal law against protesting at their homes NOW because it was just passed.

        But you obviously don’t understand what’s happened: SCOTUS justices are now “better than citizens.”

        They have protections unavailable to medical doctors. This is a complete contradiction of the idea of equal protections under the law.

        PS: It’s “blunderdog.” If you capitalize the first letter, you might get me mixed up with some other voice from the ‘net.

        1. 18 U.S. Code § 1507 – Picketing or parading- Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

          Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt.

          (Added Sept. 23, 1950, ch. 1024, title I, § 31(a), 64 Stat. 1018; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(K), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

          1. This is a statute to prevent JURY TAMPERING and analogous conduct to allow the trier of fact to analyze the evidence and reach a decision without outside interference.
            If you cannot understand that, you need to go live in Cuba or Venezuela.

          2. You idiot. Protesting outside someone’s house isn’t disrupting government business.

            1. You idiot. It’s called jury tampering and judges are treated the same as jurors. And it Is not just a criminal violation, but a worthy and important criminal violation..

        2. I assume Blunderdog can read the post below. The Federal Law was first passed in 1950. It was codified recently because some Libtards thought it only applied to Communists. Now you are walking all over it.

    1. 2000 Mules proves that Joe Biden lost the election if proven illegal ballots were removed.

      1. 2,000 Mules proves that elections must take place in a physical polling place. Voters must be identified and certified at the time of casting a ballot. The only exceptions made for absentee ballot voting must be military or diplomatic personnel.

        It is not imperative that every citizen vote.

        Turnout in 1788 was 11.6% by design.

        Voting must be voluntary and personal.

        Americans must not be forced or cajoled to vote.

        Advertisements for candidates may occur.

        Manipulating ballots among citizens must be illegal and must not occur.

  3. Jonathan: Your column in the Hill (“From Court Packing..”, 5/9) has gotten the attention of “law and order” GOP Sen. Tom Cotton. In 2020 Cotton urged Trump to use military force to suppress the protests over the murder of George Floyd. At the time Trump wanted the military to shoot protester. Now following your suggestion, Cotton has demanded the DOJ arrest and prosecute protesters outside the homes of SC justices under 18USC, Section 1507. In his letter Cotton tells AG Garland the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to “left-wing mobs” and if the AG does not swiftly act he will support impeachment proceedings in the next Congress. Cotton’s view is supported by Mitch McConnell who says the protests were “far outside the bounds of normal First Amendment speech and protest…it is an attempt to replace the rule of law with the rule of mobs”.

    So now it’s clear. You are not the “free speech absolutist” you claim to be. For you, Cotton and McConnell peaceful protests on public streets and sidewalks outside the homes of justices are not protected under the 1st Amendment because, well, they are just “left-wing mobs” and outside the “bounds of normal First Amendment speech and protest”. Are you sure you want to go down this slippery slope?

  4. Abortion politics has been reactive.

    NY passes the most permissive abortion laws there are, allowing abortion up to birth as long as the health of the mother is at risk, giving no definition of such. This movement spreads, with the VA governor infamously conjecturing that in his state, he would allow an unwanted newborn who survived such a late abortion to be made comfortable while the mother and doctor conferred over whether lifesaving measures would be taken.

    Conservatives in Congress try to pass the Born Alive Act, which would require the same standard of care for an unwanted newborn born alive after an abortion attempt as for any other newborn. Democrats blocked it.

    Conservative states react with horror to discussions about keeping infants “comfortable”, saying this was infanticide they were proposing. They reacted with more restrictions on abortions.

    Democrats reacted that conservatives were waging war on women, dismissing their concerns about the babies involved.

    SCOTUS nominations became the subjects of total warfare, with women showing up in red cloaks claiming if they weren’t allowed to abort their babies at any time for any reason, then they were sex slaves. People became hysterical over who would be on the Supreme Court, all over whether they would uphold or repeal Roe v Wade. Some people admitted they made up rape allegations against Kavanaugh because they worried he might repeal Roe v Wade.

    An activist leaked a draft SCOTUS opinion to whip up the country, indicating Roe v Wade might be repealed.

    Democrats rush to mislead everyone that this would make all abortions illegal.

    Democrats react with a Women’s Health Protection Act, which they mislabel as codifying Roe v Wade. If passed, this bill would legalize all abortions up to birth, and would legalize partial birth abortions. After viability, the only requirement would be that the pregnancy threatened the life or health of the mother, with no definitions. Stress could qualify. Could be a healthy baby they could save via emergency childbirth, yet this bill would allow him to be killed by partial birth abortion.

    A Republican countered with an opposing bill that would ban all abortions.

    We are a nation that fights with ad hominem rather than reason. A nation of thugs and ignorant mobs that politicians point and shoot.

    1. The stuff about “partial birth abortions” is completely disingenuous. There are fewer than 10 of those a year, on average, and they’re only done when the woman is at risk of severe injury or death, not “stress.” The fact is, nobody EVER wants to perform those procedures, or get them done. It’s a horrible thing done only in response to horrible circumstances.
      Even with Roe v. Wade in effect, fewer than 1% of the abortions performed in the USA were performed after the 2nd trimester.
      You probably know this, though, and are motivated mainly by the desire to punish women for having sex for any reason other than wanting a baby. That’s the real basis of the anti-abortion stance.

      1. they’re only done when the woman is at risk of severe injury or death, not “stress.

        Partial birth abortion is delivering a baby’s head. Puncturing the base of the skull, inserting a suction hose and removing the brain. The delivering the rest of the dead Baby’s body.

        How does this lesson the medical emergency, you claim is the motivating cause for the procedure.?

        This is a full term, full delivery, with all the attendant physical effort and exertion, of a live birth vaginal delivery.

        1. iowan,

          The actual medical term for what you call “partial birth abortion” is: intact dilation and extraction (D&X).

          It is NOT “a full term, full delivery.” Most often, it’s done in the 20-24 week range in the 2nd trimester. Generally, the fetus is not viable, either because it’s too early in pregnancy, or because the fetus has a condition that prevents viability even later in pregnancy, or because the fetus has already died (miscarriage).

          Your description is also wrong. The fetus dies before it is removed (whether from natural death or killed — for example by cutting the umbilical cord), then delivered feet first until only the head remained inside, then the head is punctured and the skull compressed, so it, too, can fit through the dilated cervix in the absence of contractions.

          But don’t let facts get in the way of your desire to believe something false, right?

      2. What do you mean there are fewer than 10 partial birth abortions a year? They were made illegal in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. In a partial birth abortion, the infant is delivered, alive, until the entire head is outside, or if breech, when the feet all the way to above the naval is delivered. Then the abortionist kills the baby, who would be crying if the head is out. It was a horrific act. If 10 of these are still performed a year, then they would join Dr Kermit Gosnell in prison.

        The WHPA would have removed all abortion restrictions until viability. It removed parental rights and notifications if the patient was a child. It removed all restrictions to abortions after viability, as long as the mother’s health or life was at risk. There was no definition to what would constitute that risk, so it would be open to interpretation. A pregnancy after viability could be ended to save the mother’s health by emergency delivery or C-section. Actually killing the child is not required after visibly in order to save her life or health.

        The Women’s Health Protection Act, if it had passed, would have removed all restrictions on abortion methods, which would have made Partial Birth Abortions legal again. Its co-sponsors were all Democrats, except for one Independent. 49 Democrats in the Senate voted for this bill. This has further cemented the Democrat Party as lost to extremism.

      3. blunder dog:

        1. Perhaps the reason why 2nd trimester and later abortions comprise less than 1% of total abortions because:
        a) they are illegal in some states
        b) more women would find them repulsive
        2. Studies show that fetal abnormalities are not the main reason for late term abortions. They are done for the same reason as 1st trimester abortions – loss of the relationship, loss of job, loss of residence, stress, already have kids, or not ready for kids. This idea that the only women having 2nd trimester abortions or later have only altruistic reasons for doing so is incorrect.
        3. Why would you think I, a woman, are “motivated by the desire to punish women for having sex for any reason other than wanting a baby.” That is quite an ignorant assumption, based on literally nothing I’ve ever said or written.

        This is why you don’t ask opponents to explain your motivation. The “real basis of the anti-abortion stance” is because people regard it as killing a baby, which is generally considered bad by our society. Positions on abortion are not binary. More people think there should be limits on abortion, than either think it should either be banned from day one, or without any restrictions whatsoever. If you ask someone if they oppose abortion, the answer is usually, “It depends.” Very, very few people would support aborting a healthy, viable baby, after 24 weeks. And yet, plenty of women lined up for Dr Kermit Gosnell to abort their healthy, viable, third trimester babies.

        I do believe you have earned your moniker.

        1. Roe v. Wade was a pretty good compromise.
          The reason there aren’t many abortions in the 2nd/3rd trimesters is because women who don’t want to have children know that before the 1st trimester is over. Abortions later in the process are much more often performed for medical reasons.
          I was referring not solely to the procedure you’ve mentioned, but all late-stage abortions. No one wants to do them, and no women want to get them. They are horrible events in response to impossibly difficult circumstances.
          As to why you want to punish women despite being one–I’m not a clinical psychologist, but it is not at all unusual for someone to internalize the same values of their oppressor. Women also socially have a great deal more interest in general in controlling the behavior of other women’s sexuality because they see it as a threat to their own status in the pecking order. And finally, never having found yourself in a situation where you became pregnant involuntarily at a time when carrying a pregnancy to term would gravely harm your well-being, apparently you’re incapable of imagining such a scenario.

          1. blunderdog, I understand why you would assume that most abortions in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters are done for medical reasons. I used to assume the exact same thing. However, I was dismayed to learn that, although fetuses with abnormalities are more likely to be aborted, they do not comprise the majority of 2nd trimester and later abortions. In fact, studies have shown that those later term abortions are performed for the same reasons as first trimester abortions. Loss of relationship. The father is not the significant other. Loss of job. Already have children. Not ready for children. Stress. Not realizing they were pregnant or denial about pregnancy.

            Bellies are opaque. There are people who fool themselves that it’s a ball of tissue, or clump of cells, when in fact the blastula stage is a very brief period in early development. Remember, there are girls and women who pretend they aren’t pregnant. If they don’t think about it, it will go away. There are women who are in denial right up until they deliver a baby in a bathroom stall. Those are the women who might then take the ultimate next step in denial, and kill the newborn.

            Absolutely, there are women who would abort their growing baby in the 2nd trimester and later. They just want to get rid of the problem.

            You assume wrong if you think I’m incapable of imagining that carrying a pregnancy to term could harm someone’s well being. I’ve said before that I developed preeclampsia, and my own beloved child was delivered early via emergency C-section. My pregnancy became life threatening. The answer was to end the pregnancy through emergency C section delivery. Taking the extra step of killing a child does nothing to improve the mother’s health. Simply removing the fetus solves the problem of a life threatening pregnancy. Any abortion of a healthy, viable fetus is because the mother doesn’t just want the pregnancy ended, she wants that child dead. There are arguments that people make about non viable fetal abnormalities, as well as abnormalities that the child could survive, but the mother just doesn’t want the child born. The question about abortion after 24 weeks, the current limit of viability, of a healthy fetus is pretty clear. The mother wants that baby dead. Dr Kermit Gosnell made a booming business serving women pregnant after 24 weeks who wanted their healthy babies killed.

            I don’t know why people do this. Assuming everyone has altruistic motives makes as much sense as assuming every stranger you meet is a great person.

            I am afraid I am completely lost as to why you think women want to control other women’s sexuality because of some pecking order. That’s really weird.

            Most Americans believe there should be limits on abortion. Most people polled who support Roe v Wade, also support limits that are not permitted under Roe v Wade, which indicates there is quite a bit of misinformation and emotional rhetoric about this issue. The reason people believe there should be limits is because at some point, most people believe the baby has a right not to be killed. That point is different for many people. Pretending that you have to have some evil motive to oppose killing a fetus is disingenuous.

            1. I didn’t say most abortions after the 1st trimester were for medical reasons–I said most of the gruesome late-stage abortions (like the partial-birth procedure you’d described) are done for medical reasons. That’s still true.

              I said it’s only about 1% of abortions in the USA take place in the 2nd/3rd trimester.

              I don’t believe you’re being honest and I have no interest in continuing the discussion with you.

              In my view, the milennia-old traditional belief that abortion only becomes a moral issue after “quickening” is basically correct, and that the insanity of the modern push to convince people that embryos/fetuses are indistinguishable from babies is actually primarily about controlling women and achieving radical reactionary political goals.

              You want the USA to be more like El Salvador? That’s your business. It’s looking like you’re going to get what you want, and when the number of women dying from illegal abortions is back up in the hundreds per year, it’ll probably wake up some of younger generations of women about the lie that they’re full citizens in the USA.

              Good for you. Soon you’ll probably be required to register your fertility with the State. Doesn’t matter quite as much to me, as I’m a male, and even though it’s morally completely repugnant to enact these backwards and misogynistic policies, it’ll feel nice knowing you WANT the State treating you as legally inferior to me.

              Toodles!

                1. Out-brained? Not by someone who moves the goalposts during the discussion. There’s no discussion to be had when someone won’t speak in good faith.

            2. Karen,

              When you say “studies have shown that those later term [2nd trimester and later] abortions are performed for the same reasons as first trimester abortions,” what studies are you referring to?

              If you’re referring to the study that Estovir referenced (Foster DG, Kimport K. Who seeks abortions at or after 20 weeks? Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2013 Dec; 45(4): 210-18), it did not study third trimester abortions. The authors made that clearer in a corrigendum that Estovir also referenced:
              “One sentence on page 210 in the introduction of the article has been misinterpreted. We say ‘data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.’ The sentence is about abortions performed from 20 weeks to the end of the second trimester, and it has no relevance to abortions in the third trimester. Only about one percent of abortions occur in the second half of pregnancy (at or beyond 20 weeks) and the vast majority of these occur close to 20 weeks. Our article, which focuses on women seeking abortions from 20 weeks to the end of the second trimester (about 28 weeks), therefore captures most of the women having abortions after 20 weeks. Little is known about the relatively few abortions occurring in the third trimester, although late detection of fetal anomaly and increasing incidence of maternal health complications with advanced gestation suggest that reasons for abortion in the third trimester may differ from those in the second.”

              I wish you’d responded to my May 11, 2022 at 7:54 PM and May 16, 2022 at 4:02 PM comments to you. You asked me to apologize, and I did. I asked you to acknowledge your mistakes; so far, you haven’t.

        2. Karen,

          Until the last few months when states started passing laws outlawing abortion prior to viability, 2nd trimester abortions prior to viability were not illegal in any state. Moreover, abortions to save the woman’s life aren’t illegal in any state.

          As for “Studies show that fetal abnormalities are not the main reason for late term abortions,” I’ll again point out that with respect to pregnancy, “late term” means after 40 weeks. You must mean something else, but you don’t say what you mean. If you’re talking about “2nd trimester abortions or later,” that’s most of pregnancy. It’s no surprise that women often have second trimester abortions for the same reasons that they have 1st trimester abortions. But the distribution of reasons for abortions in the 3rd trimester is not the same as the distribution of reasons for earlier abortions.

          “More people think there should be limits on abortion, than either think it should either be banned from day one, or without any restrictions whatsoever. ”

          I’m one of them. And I’ve said what my personal beliefs are: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/05/supreme-stench-how-politics-replaced-principle-in-the-high-court/comment-page-3/#comment-2181101
          Strangely, although I’ve asked you more than once, you will not specify what your personal beliefs are.

    2. Karen, you might find the following article helpful on the topic of the 5 most common reasons for partial birth abortions. None of them include non-viability.

      Foster DG, Kimport K. Who seeks abortions at or after 20 weeks? Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2013 Dec;45(4):210-8. doi: 10.1363/4521013. Epub 2013 Nov 4. Erratum in: Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2019 Sep;51(3):185. PMID: 24188634.

      Results: Women aged 20-24 were more likely than those aged 25-34 to have a later abortion (odds ratio, 2.7), and women who discovered their pregnancy before eight weeks’ gestation were less likely than others to do so (0.1). Later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays (e.g., difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs), which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous.

      1. Note: the above article was so damaging to the pro-aborts, that the authors submitted a Corrigendum 6 years later, to soften the damage, something unheard of in these types of articles. The objective data buries the pro-aborts side time after time

        Corrigendum. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2019 Sep;51(3):185. doi: 10.1363/psrh.12114. Epub 2019 Aug 9

        1. a) A corrigendum t’s not ‘unheard of.” If you search Pubmed on “corrigendum,” there are over 25,000 results:
          https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=corrigendum

          What the authors said in the corrigendum you highlight:
          “One sentence on page 210 in the introduction of the article has been misinterpreted. We say “data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment.” The sentence is about abortions performed from 20 weeks to the end of the second trimester, and it has no relevance to abortions in the third trimester. Only about one percent of abortions occur in the second half of pregnancy (at or beyond 20 weeks) and the vast majority of these occur close to 20 weeks. Our article, which focuses on women seeking abortions from 20 weeks to the end of the second trimester (about 28 weeks), therefore captures most of the women having abortions after 20 weeks. Little is known about the relatively few abortions occurring in the third trimester, although late detection of fetal anomaly and increasing incidence of maternal health complications with advanced gestation suggest that reasons for abortion in the third trimester may differ from those in the second.”

      2. Note that “later in pregnancy” in that article means at or after 20 weeks. The average fetal age in that article was 22 weeks. Most of the abortions the data analyze there are prior to viability.

  5. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, earlier this evening:
    “Overturning Roe v. Wade would not ban abortion. It would send the decision back to your state.”

    Ashton Pittman:
    “CLAIM: Sen. Marsha Blackburn says overturning Roe v. Wade will simply send abortion back to the states.
    “REALITY: She is a sponsor of the federal “Life At Conception Act,” which would ban abortion nationwide ‘at all stages of life, including from the moment of fertilization.’”

    Here’s the bill Blackburn and 17 other Republican Senators have cosponsored:
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/99
    “Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. … The terms “human person” and “human being” include each member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization or cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.”

    1. Anonymous: Good point. Many other reproductive rights, and other rights, could be on the chopping block under the rationale of Alito’s draft opinion. It seems counter-intuitive that a woman would want to control the reproductive choices of others of the same gender. But for Blackburn and the GOP it’s all about limiting, not expanding rights. Of course, if Blackburn found herself with an unwanted pregnancy do you think she would not hesitate to run to her gynecologist if Roe is overturned? Now you would think if poor Black, Brown and white women are forced to carry a pregnancy to term there would be generous benefits for mother and child. Nope. In Mississippi, the case now before the Court, it has the highest infant mortality rate in the country. Under the GOP dominated state legislature Mississippi is one of 12 states that have not expanded Medicaid access–after the 60 day cut-off. Now, if suddenly, the SC were dominated by a 5-4 WOMAN majority and they made vasectomies illegal what do you think would be the reaction? Turley would be up in arms and when men descended on the SC building with pitchforks in hand Turley would be leading the charge shouting “the mob is right!”.

    2. Anonymous, Blackburn proposed a federal law that was the mirrored opposite of the Women’s Health Protection Act, that just recently was voted down in the House, 51/49, with Manchin the deciding vote.

      Under the WHPA, there could be NO abortion restrictions of any kind up until fetal viability. If the fetus never attained viability, then there would be no restrictions. After viability, there could be NO restrictions if any doctor determined that continuing the pregnancy would endanger the life or health of the mother. Such threat was not defined, in any way. In addition, it should be noted that the way to end a viable pregnancy that is threatening the life or health of the mother is to deliver the baby, via labor and delivery or C-Section. An abortion after 24 weeks is a lengthy process, which currently requires the woman to have a lethal injection administered to her baby en utero. Then she goes home, carrying a dead baby inside her, for 24 hours. The next day, she returns to the clinic. The doctor ascertains her baby is, in fact, dead, and then induces labor, whereupon she delivers a still born. This takes more time, and carries more risk to the mother, than an emergency delivery.

      WHPA has a few more changes. It removes ALL restrictions on abortion procedures and techniques. This means the gruesome partial birth abortion would again be legal. It removes ALL parental rights when the patient is a minor. The parents are neither informed nor asked for consent if their child asks for an abortion.

      Note that fetal abnormality is not a requirement.

      The WHPA would allow the abortion of a full term, healthy infant up until the moment of birth, even allowing partial birth abortion, in which most of the baby is delivered alive.

      My own pregnancy became life threatening when I developed preeclampsia. My baby was delivered within an hour of diagnosis, and the actual procedure took minutes. Since he was a few weeks early, my baby had his own team of healthcare professionals, like a pit crew, who whisked him off to make sure he was OK, my husband at their heels. My life threatening pregnancy was successfully ended with emergency C-section.

      Abortion after viability is not about ending the pregnancy. It’s about making sure that baby is dead, and not adopted. For those who claim that this would only be done in cases of fetal abnormality, that is tragically proven untrue. Studies show that late term abortion, though currently rare, are done for the same reasons as earlier abortion. Loss of a relationship, stress, loss of job, already have kids, not ready for kids. Babies with abnormalities compatible with life, like Downs Syndrome, are indeed at higher risk for abortion, but they do not make up the majority of abortions. One is to recall that Dr Kermit Gosnell did a booming business, aborting healthy third trimester babies. He was convicted for killing newborns after they drew breath. Nurses testified that they saw healthy, normal advanced pregnancies, and healthy born children, killed by Gosnell. There absolutely is an appetite and a market for killing healthy babies after 24 weeks. There are women who’d rather see their baby dead than adopted.

      Take a moment to think about the 49 votes in favor of this horror bill.

      The WHPA would have forced the most permissive abortion laws on the world on all 50 states. I not only oppose the WHPA on moral grounds, but also on the principle that such issues should be decided by each state, to more accurately reflect the will of the people.

      Blackburn introduced her own federal bill that would have done the direct opposite, and banned abortion in all 50 states, again, not allowing each state to decide this issue at the will of its people. Her bill will be defeated, but I doubt she will get as high as 49.

      Whether you are for, or against, or just want limits on abortion, it should be decided by the states.

      1. Karen,

        Please, please choose to be a good-faith discussant. In part, that means avoiding false claims, where you’re making it either knowing that it’s false OR where you’ve chosen not to do a basic fact-check. We all sometimes make mistaken claims, but we should try to avoid them.

        Your claim that “Under the WHPA, there could be NO abortion restrictions of any kind up until fetal viability” is false.

        Here’s the text:

        Notice that it defines viability:
        “The term “viability” means the point in a pregnancy at which, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, based on the particular facts of the case before the health care provider, there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained fetal survival outside the uterus with or without artificial support.”
        And then it says:
        “A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements: …
        “(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.
        “(9) A prohibition on abortion after fetal viability when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”

        So it very clearly allows states to pass legislation outlawing abortion after viability for the large subset of pregnancies that don’t pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.

        “After viability, there could be NO restrictions if any doctor determined that continuing the pregnancy would endanger the life or health of the mother.”

        Now you admit that your initial claim was false. So why did you make it?

        “Such threat was not defined, in any way.”

        How do you expect them to define “risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health”? Considering the range of possible risks to health, why are you unwilling to leave it to “the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider”? You think health care providers are going to say that a fetus is viable, but X is a pregnancy-related risk to the mother’s health when X is not actually a pregnancy-related risk to the mother’s health?

        Guttmacher notes “In 2012, only 34% of all facilities that provided abortion in the United States offered the procedure at 20 weeks’ gestation; 16% did so at 24 weeks.” So most simply don’t provide abortions after viability. Hospitals are more likely to, but people don’t get abortions in hospitals for minor health reasons. Here’s one discussion of abortions after viability: washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/tough-questions-answers-late-term-abortions-law-women-who-get-them/
        As that article notes, “Jen Villavicencio, an obstetrician-gynecologist in the Midwest, explained that, in the vast majority of cases in which a woman becomes seriously ill late in pregnancy, doctors are working to save both the woman and the fetus. But in rare situations, it’s clear the fetus will not survive, and then the patients and their loved ones must make a decision about whether to put a sick woman at further risk with a delivery. … Jennifer Gunter, obstetrician and gynecologist practicing in California, offered this scenario on her blog: ‘A good example is a woman at 26 weeks who needs to be delivered for her blood pressure — that is the cure, delivery. However, because of her high-blood pressure fetal development has been affected and her fetus is estimated to weigh 300 g, which means it can not live after delivery. She will be offered an abortion if there is a skilled provider. This is safer for her and her uterus than a delivery.’”

        Why do you assume that YOU know better than the doctors dealing with all of the specifics of the woman’s and fetus’s health statuses?

        Personally, I’d say that that’s not a situation where it’s really after viability, even though the pregnancy is at 26 weeks, when many fetuses are viable. How about you: would you say that that 26 week fetus is viable?

        Some fetuses never become viable. They have serious conditions like total anencephaly that are “incompatible with life after birth.”

        “The WHPA would allow the abortion of a full term, healthy infant up until the moment of birth, even allowing partial birth abortion, in which most of the baby is delivered alive.”

        It would allow every state to make that **illegal** except when “in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.”

        “Studies show that late term abortion, though currently rare, are done for the same reasons as earlier abortion.”

        Now you’re shifting to “late term,” not “after viability.”

        First, in pregnancy, “late term” means after 40 weeks. What do YOU mean by “late term”? If you mean something like “after 20 weeks,” again: not all fetuses are viable at that point.

        Or consider the couple whose story I gave you the link for earlier, where they chose to have an abortion at 24 weeks due to a serious genetic problem and then discovered that the fetus had died: that’s not “the same reasons as earlier abortion.” It was a wanted pregnancy, and they’d only learned the diagnosis a week earlier. You still haven’t said whether you’d have allowed that abortion had they not discovered that she’d miscarried. You avoid the hard decisions.

        “Dr Kermit Gosnell did a booming business”

        AND HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW!!!
        For goodness sakes, don’t base your argument about **legal** abortions on someone who was **breaking the law**.

        “Whether you are for, or against, or just want limits on abortion, it should be decided by the states.”

        I disagree. We already see states that will totally outlaw it unless the mother’s life is at risk. States should not have the ability to deny women the right to control their own uterus prior to viability.

        You never say what law you want. I’ve asked you before, and you keep saying that you don’t know. Why can’t you figure out what law you’d want in your state?

        1. “Karen, Please, please choose to be a good-faith discussant. “

          How about you answering the call and apologizing to all your fellow bloggers who fell into your trap and had their responses deleted. ATS, there is no such thing as good-faith where you are concerned.

        2. States already control a woman’s body. You are guilty of disinformation. A woman – if there is such a thing according to the new Supreme Court Justice- cannot legally engage in suicide or euthenasia, both of which therefore disallow a decision of the woman as to the use of her body and which is the ultimate decision on the use of her body.
          Secondly, you misrepresented the interpretation of the statute. The portion of the law that you quoted says that the abortion physician is allowed to disregad state statutes restricting the abortion.
          You are typical of Democrat talking points in that you misrepresent opinion as fact.

          1. First, what I said was “States should not have the ability to deny women the right to control their own uterus prior to viability.” You’re the one who shifted the claim from controlling her uterus to controlling her body.

            Second, suicide is not illegal in the US.

            As for “The portion of the law that you quoted says that the abortion physician is allowed to disregad state statutes restricting the abortion” — that’s only IF the abortion is either “prior to fetal viability” OR “when, in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” Otherwise, what you claim is false.

        3. Anonymous:

          Please, carefully re-read your own post.

          You said, “Your claim that “Under the WHPA, there could be NO abortion restrictions of any kind up until fetal viability” is false.”

          Then, to support your accusation, you include the text of the bill. You should note that I included a link to this bill above.

          “A health care provider has a statutory right under this Act to provide abortion services, and may provide abortion services, and that provider’s patient has a corresponding right to receive such services, without any of the following limitations or requirements: …
          “(8) A prohibition on abortion at any point or points in time prior to fetal viability, including a prohibition or restriction on a particular abortion procedure.”

          So, you said I was spreading falsehoods for remarking that there could be NO abortion restrictions of any kind up until fetal viability, and then you quoted the text confirming there could be no prohibition on abortion prior to fetal viability.

          I also clearly stated in the original post that one of the issues with the WHPA is that it would allow abortions after viability, if the woman’s health or life were at risk. The issues were:
          1) No definition for what constitutes a health risk. Stress could qualify. NY doctors have gone on record about this.
          2) A life threatening pregnancy of a VIABLE infant could be ended, to protect the woman’s health, with a delivery of the live child. Taking the additional step to kill the child AFTER VIABILITY does nothing to protect the health of the mother. Further, abortions after viability take longer and are more risky than delivering the child alive, and the mother still has to labor and deliver the stillborn. The purpose is to kill the child, not end the pregnancy.

          I await your apology as a measure of your integrity.

          1. Karen,

            I misread your first claim that I quoted. You clearly said “Under the WHPA, there could be NO abortion restrictions of any kind up until fetal viability,” but it looks like I interpreted it as “after” rather than “up until.” My mistake — and for that, I apologize.

            That said, your claim is still false.

            The text of the bill doesn’t say that there cannot be “restrictions of any kind up until fetal viability.” It says that abortion cannot be prohibited prior to viability and that “a particular abortion procedure” cannot be prohibited or restricted, but that clearly still allows other kinds of restrictions (e.g., laws requiring a 48 hour waiting period).

            Also, that was not the only claim of yours that was false. The following (a-c) were also false:

            a) “The WHPA would allow the abortion of a full term, healthy infant up until the moment of birth, even allowing partial birth abortion, in which most of the baby is delivered alive.”
            First, most post-viability abortions could be outlawed; the sole exception would be if the mother’s life or health were endangered.
            Second, as I pointed out to iowan:
            Most often a D&X is done in the 20-24 week range in the 2nd trimester. Generally, the fetus is not viable, either because it’s too early in pregnancy, or because the fetus has a condition that prevents viability even later in pregnancy, or because the fetus has already died (miscarriage). Your description is also wrong. The fetus dies before it is removed (whether from natural death or killed — for example by cutting the umbilical cord), then delivered feet first until only the head remained inside, then the head is punctured and the skull compressed, so it, too, can fit through the dilated cervix in the absence of contractions.

            b) “Blackburn proposed a federal law that was the mirrored opposite of the Women’s Health Protection Act”
            “Mirrored opposite” is not an accurate description. For example, declaring that personhood begins at conception has much broader legal implications.

            c) “Abortion after viability is not about ending the pregnancy. … Studies show that late term abortion, though currently rare, are done for the same reasons as earlier abortion.”
            Studies do not show that abortions after viability are done for the same reasons as earlier abortions. Sometimes abortions later in the 2nd trimester before viability aren’t done for the same reasons either. For example, I’ve repeatedly asked you to consider the couple whose story I gave you the link for earlier, where they chose to have an abortion at 24 weeks due to a serious genetic problem and then discovered that the fetus had died: that’s not “the same reasons as earlier abortion.” It was a wanted pregnancy, and they’d only learned the diagnosis a week earlier. You STILL haven’t said whether you’d have allowed that abortion had they not discovered that she’d miscarried. You avoid the hard decisions.

            Are you going to acknowledge any of your false statements, as you asked me to do?

            “No definition for what constitutes a health risk. Stress could qualify. NY doctors have gone on record about this.”

            You haven’t produced the “record” you claim exists. I’ll wait til you do that, so I can read what they’ve actually said.

            You claim “A life threatening pregnancy of a VIABLE infant could be ended, to protect the woman’s health, with a delivery of the live child.”

            Let’s look at specific cases of people LEGALLY aborting a viable fetus. I’m not aware of many. Are you?

            If I’m remembering correctly, one example is a court case where a 12 y.o. was pregnant through rape by an adult relative, and the parents wouldn’t allow her to get an abortion, and she went to court to get permission, which was finally granted — but only when she was 7 months along (presumably the fetus was viable at that point, but I don’t know). Would you have forced that 12 y.o. to continue the pregnancy and give birth? I wouldn’t.

            Or, consider the situations where someone has a wanted pregnancy and terminates it in the second half of the pregnancy after the fetus is diagnosed with an awful medical condition where the newborn is likely to die shortly after birth and to experience significant pain, seizures, etc. before dying. I would not force a woman to bring that pregnancy to term only to watch her newborn die a difficult death, though I’d support her decision if that what she chose. Would you force her to give birth?

            Or, consider the situation were a woman’s life is endangered. Here’s one (quoting a Washington Post article):
            “[Vanessa Cullins, Vice President for External Medical Affairs for Planned Parenthood Federation of America] says there also are cases after viability in which an abortion is safer than an induced childbirth or surgical delivery. Cecily Kellogg, 44, a writer who lives near Philadelphia, says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and “my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute,” she says. The doctors said they had to quickly dilate her cervix and perform an abortion to save her. “I fought it,” she says. “But they told me I would die — that it was either me and my son or just my son.” She says it was a “horrible experience,” but the right thing to do.”

            Would you have forced her to give birth and risk death? Why do you insist that your assumption that she could have safely delivered the very early remaining twin is justified? Why do you think you understand the medical issues better that Kellogg’s doctors?

      2. Blackburn is an aging hillbilly ignoramus enjoying her 15 minutes of fame. Here’s a little fact: Republicans in the Senate represent 30% of the US population, while Democrats represent the other 70%. Does that sound (small d) democratic to you? Talk about laws being forced on Americans. Again, rights to personal liberty and privacy, which are guaranteed by the US Constitution, and which apply to every American, are not subject to state regulation. States don’t get to abridge any rights granted to you by the Constitution. And, Karen, there aren’t any valid “studies” that show what you claim at all. If a fetus is delivered alive, it’s murder to fail to provide care to them. That’s true in all 50 states. Again, Karen, why don’t you move to Alabama, where you’d be a lot happier? California really isn’t for you.

        1. Blackburn is an aging hillbilly ignoramus enjoying her 15 minutes of fame.
          Always nice when commenters self identify as raging bigots. Leading with the ad hominem attack in the first sentence, identifies the poster as a low information commenter.

  6. Sen. Elizabeth Warren: “I believe in democracy, and I don’t believe the minority should have the ability to block things that the majority wants to do. That’s not in the Constitution….It’s time to get rid of the filibuster.”

    The bill only received 49 votes. That’s a minority. CNN Chief Congressional Correspondent, Manu Raju stands there in her interview and lets her get away with this. No correction. No on-the-spot fact check or push back. Of course not. Why not? Because CNN is Fake News.

    1. Senator Warren was clearly not a math professor, and journalistic integrity is dead.

  7. Republicans Won’t Stop With Abortion Bans

    Contraception Destined To Be Next Big Fight

    Kristan Hawkins is president of the anti-abortion rights groups Students for Life of America, which is pushing for state and federal legislation to recognize human life as beginning “at conception.” Her group takes the position that some devices and pills that can prevent implantation of a fertilized egg are “mislabeled” as contraception — a position at odds with the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, which defines pregnancy as beginning at implantation.

    “I think legislators should be able to have the right to decide and to investigate if there are devices, if there’s chemicals that are ending the lives of their citizens in their state,” Hawkins said.

    In an interview last week, Hawkins denied that birth control is a focus of her movement – and called that notion a “scare tactic.”

    Some Republican leaders, including a state lawmaker in Idaho, have expressed an openness to entertaining questions about the safety of contraceptives, which are tested by federal regulators before they are put on the market.

    Last week, a Louisiana state lawmaker proposed a bill that would classify abortion as a homicide – beginning at the moment of fertilization.

    On CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, when host Jake Tapper asked Mississippi’s Republican Gov. Tate Reeves about the bill in his neighboring state, Reeves declined to rule out support for similar legislation, saying only, “That is not what we are focused on at this time.”

    https://www.npr.org/2022/05/11/1097666334/roe-birth-control

  8. “When the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified. When not, not.” You would expect this comment from your 14 year old child. Not from a university professor. Is Chafetz so self unaware that he doesn’t see the simpleness, and immaturity, of such a comment.

  9. How many people on thi blog will get an abortion? Ok. How many people on this blog will pay over $4.00 a gallon for gasoline. But all your going to hear from the democrats is abortion, abortion, abortion.

    1. I will never get an abortion, but I care more about people’s rights than about the cost gas (which — adjusted for inflation or judged in terms of how long you’d need to work to pay for a gallon based on Average Hourly Earnings of Production and Nonsupervisory Employees — is not at a historic high). I’d feel that way even if a car were the only means of transportation available for the places I want to get, but the fact is that I can instead use some combination of other transport: walking, biking, buses/trains, carpooling. I’ve been poor at times in my life, so I’m not flippant about costs, but bodily autonomy is simply more important to me.

      1. Hey Anonymous the Stupid, good luck running on telling people “hey, if you go by hourly wages you are paying less than people paid in 1973”. You sound like a real political savant!

        1. I’m not running for office. I was just stating a fact, along with my own preferences. You’re free to have different preferences.

      1. David, many things factor into gas prices. But, if yesterday the cost was $2 and suddenly it went to $4 heading for $6, one recognizes something is causing that. Inflation is one cause. There are other causes, but Biden’s energy policies are the major problem. Generally, the market accommodates price shifts, but not as quickly with market interference. That is predominantly Biden’s fault.

          1. David, do you not realize that high prices are relative? Look at how prices fall as supply increases and technology improves efficiency. If anything, gas prices should be falling, not getting higher, but for Biden’s policies.

            1. S. Meyer, if you would bother to read the article whose link I posted, you would see that, indeed, gas prices have been falling, on average, for a long time. Once adjusted for inflation.

              1. It makes little difference. We see radical changes with higher oil prices. Most of that is due to Biden’s policies. He has stifled oil production. The laws of supply and demand tell you what will happen. He has caused inflation. That causes an elevation in all prices. Other things exist that can have an effect, but Biden is the biggest problem. It’s not just oil. It’s food as well. Food prices have a solid relationship to oil prices.

                  1. David– The article you linked appears to confirm rather than refute S. Meyer’s points.

                    “Diesel is used in every part of the industrial activity and supply chain, from goods transportation to manufacturing and agriculture; it fuels America’s economy. ”

                    Ukraine may have added pressure on prices but they were rising sharply well before that conflict began. I suppose it is reasonable that Biden’s efforts to curtail domestic production would increase costs. Democrats said some time back that their goal was to make energy even more costly than it is. Seems never to have occurred to them until they saw their polls drop that voters may exact their own price for that bit of foolishness.

                    1. David– I read it again but I don’t think you have read your cited article at all.

                      Perhaps you linked this by accident thinking it was a different article that actually agreed with whatever your views may be.

                    2. Young, you didn’t quote anything from the article in The Hill. That is the one I doubt you have read.

                      For example, note well that once again Alaska lease auctions were canceled for lack of interest.

                      But more to the point, do try. to understand the statistics in the article about inflation.

                    3. David– I didn’t quote from The Hill; I only linked to it. I actually copied and pasted from YOUR article. Here it is again:

                      “Diesel is used in every part of the industrial activity and supply chain, from goods transportation to manufacturing and agriculture; it fuels America’s economy.”

                      You can see increased fuel/energy costs increase the costs of nearly everything else. Reducing the supply of a commodity, as Biden has done with energy, without corresponding reductions in demand lead to increased prices. Biden is demented.

              2. David, you are missing the realities. Gas prices should have been falling, and they were. Then Biden came in with his policies that trended towards reducing our oil supply and inhibiting investors from putting money into the production process. That immediately affected the oil market. Other things might cause a slight upward or downward trend, but the Biden trend was firmly established. Gas prices would rise.

                It is fundamental; supply and demand. Anything that increases supply will decrease prices, and anything that increases demand will increase prices. Biden’s policies are the direct causes of increased prices.

              3. David Benson, is that your excuse? If you pretended inflation wasn’t making every good and service unaffordable, then gas would be affordable, too?

                Guess who poured gasoline on the fire of inflation? Joe Biden.

                This elitist disdain for the struggle that Americans are facing, finding baby formula to feed their kids, gassing up their car, and trying to afford skyrocketing prices of every single good and service in America, is heartless. It’s the Democrats’ let them eat cake moment.

                People can’t afford the gas to get to work. They can’t afford the plumber, who has to raise prices so he can drive to jobs. There isn’t enough food for babies in the United States, and we’ve relied upon Ireland to help with supply.

                For God’s sake, what is it going to take for Democrats to admit they have a problem?

                1. Biden is a lousy President and the Democrats are scum for forcing him on the country.
                  The claim that he poured gasoline on the fire of inflation is false, though. You should criticize him for the stuff he’s actually responsible for, and while you’re at it, you might want to learn something about inflation.

          2. “[W]hatever the cause gas prices are not currently high.”

            National average gas prices in January 2021: About $2.40/gl

            Average national gas prices in May 2022: About $4.40/gl

            In just 16 months, that’s an astronomical increase in gas prices of some $2/gl or *80%*!

            Just 16 months ago. that tank of gas that cost you $48. Now, 16 months later, that same tank costs you $88.

            What policies has Biden enacted in those 16 months? Energy-destroying regulations, egged on by his “Green New Deal” zealots.

      2. “Gas prices not high:”

        First the statists create inflation. Then they use that inflation to argue that gas prices aren’t that high.

        That’s quite a racket.

          1. “The existence of inflation precedes the existence of cars.”

            Well, there’s a new lie/deflection to render Biden blameless. Here’s the lineup, to date: Inflation . . .

            — Doesn’t exist
            — Is “transitory”
            — Is good for you
            — Is Putin’s fault
            — And now: Has always been here, like a fact of nature

      3. You are deliberately lying, as usual. No surprise, but this lie is truly ridiculous.

        The article you posted is from March 12. The chart was using average prices for this year of $3.36, but the current price of gas is $4.40. That puts us at all-time highs on an inflation adjusted basis, yet you lie and say “gas prices not high.” You are a joke.

  10. Alito’s Opinion Could Open Pandora’s Box Of Privacy Issues Regarding Apps And Phone Records

    In the wake of the leaked draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, privacy experts are increasingly concerned about how data collected from period-tracking apps, among other applications, could potentially be used to penalize anyone seeking or considering an abortion.

    Millions of people use apps to help track their menstrual cycles. Flo, which bills itself as the most popular period and cycle tracking app, has amassed 43 million active users. Another app, Clue, claims 12 million monthly active users.

    The personal health data stored in these apps is among the most intimate types of information a person can share. And it can also be telling. The apps can show when their period stops and starts and when a pregnancy stops and starts.

    That has privacy experts on edge, because if abortion is ever criminalized, this data — whether subpoenaed or sold to a third party — could be used to suggest that someone has had or is considering an abortion.

    Evan Greer, director of the digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future, says period apps aren’t the only ways technology can be used to connect someone to an abortion. If someone is sitting in the waiting room of a clinic that offers abortion services and is playing a game on their phone, that app might be collecting location data, she says.

    Search histories could also be identifying.
    Activist groups — regardless of what they’re advocating for — might try to purchase a dataset that would show where people have been searching for information related to abortion.

    It’s not uncommon for apps to cooperate with law enforcement during criminal investigations — oftentimes around child exploitative imagery in particular. If abortion is criminalized, experts say period-tracking data could become a target for investigators.

    https://www.npr.org/2022/05/10/1097482967/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-abortion-period-apps

      1. Iowan, those protections were passed during the Roe era. But if redneck states criminalize abortion and, or, make it a murder rap, then local local prosecutors may demand access to health and phone records.

        1. Hey Anonymous the Stupid, how much did you support the HIPAA laws when young nurses trying to get pregnant were fired for not getting vaccinated? Oh, you didn’t support them at all did you? You weren’t exactly “my body, my choice” either were you.

          PS. Stop commenting 1000 times a day, we are all sick to death of you.

    1. REGARDING ABOVE:

      Republicans are kidding themselves if they Alito’s opinion ‘settles’ anything. To the contrary, this development could open a host of divisive issues that could reverberate for years to come.

      Roe was decided for good reason. This current court is NOT ‘new and improved’.. quite the opposite.

      1. I don’t see a host of divisive issues, and you don’t mention even one. But like always, that State Legislatures can address the needs of the people, just fine.
        The more I suss out the menstrual apps, I don’t see a problem. Its medical information protected by Federal law.
        This is leftist fear mongering.

          1. If you don’t trust the legislature in Mississippi… Then don’t move there. Simple. You are under the mistaken notion that federalism requires every state to comport with your accepted dogma, or They aren’t to be trusted. Get over yourself and let each state decide for themselves how they choose to live.

          2. states like Mississippi don’t have legislatures everyone can trust.

            I trust any state legislature more then the DOJ.

            (We will talk about NIH admitting they hid DNA evidence from public linking COVID to the Wauhan lab, later)

        1. FYI:

          May 22-28 2022, The Biden Admin will officially sign over all Medical authority of the US Citizen’s Govt sovereignty to the UN & WHO along with WEF.

          Nothing big, it’s just complete Treason against the US Citizen;s Govt. But no one will do Crap about it & you’ll likely hear nothing about it from WAPO, NYT,CNN, FOX, etc…

          WAR has been declared against us all & most no one even knows.

          AJ’s Banned.Video is following it.

          Don’t let their Bio-Weapon “Gain Of Function” Lab Ticks Bite you in the Azz. LOL;)

          And notice them turning off your Energy Pipelines & Electric Power Plants?

          (George Carlin: They’ve Got You By The Balls”)

        2. Spend more time talking with women about how regular they are/aren’t. Talk with them about whether their birth control has ever failed, whether they’ve ever been raped, whether they’ve ever had a pregnancy that created health problems for them, whether they’ve ever had a wanted pregnancy terminated for fetal medical reasons, …

          It doesn’t matter whether you see a problem. It’s not your decision to make for someone else, any more than someone else can force you to donate bone marrow to save someone’s life, which is less risky than pregnancy.

    2. I’m not pro-abortion-on-demand, but for all the people who have said to me “If I’m not doing anything wrong, why should I worry about privacy?” here is the reason! You NEVER know when the government is going to justify its intrusion into your private life! Support stringent privacy laws!!

  11. “For an academic to support the targeting of jurists and their families at their homes should be shocking.” As opposed to what other group of people supporting such a thing?

    Education is a double-edged sword.

  12. Most of the angst driving the protests are from being misinformed.

    Most Americans polled want to keep Roe v Wade.

    Most Americans polled think that repealing Roe v Wade makes all abortions in the US illegal.

    Most Americans polled support certain abortion limits which are currently not allowed under Roe v Wade.

    So put your torches and pitchforks down, and read up on the issue.

    Roe v Wade created a new Constitutional right to abortion. Abortion, and the unborn, are mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. This fueled a schism between those who believe the Constitution is malleable, and those who object to legislating from the bench.

    If Roe v Wade gets repealed, abortion would be handled by the state and the federal government. State voters would decide state law, and Congress would legislate federal law. Since the majority of Americans favor permitting abortion, but with gestational limits, then that would shape abortion law.

    If left up to the states, then conservative states like OK would have more restrictions than far Left New York. The law would follow the will of the people in the democratic process.

    If left up to the federal government, then abortion laws would likely be more restrictive than NY would like, and more permissive than OK would like.

    Those who say that men should have no say on abortion because it affects women’s bodies, also want a mostly male Supreme Court to uphold the Roe v Wade decision, which was originated by a male Court.

    In my personal opinion, abortion is sad. I’m not sure what a perfectly fair law would be, that balances the rights of the unborn child with those of the mother. I do think that both mother and child’s interests matter. If abortion laws are too permissive, then, worst case scenario, it would be possible for a woman to abort a full term, healthy baby, even though it takes longer than labor and delivery or a C section. It also absolves men of responsibility. Men can have sex without responsibility for possible offspring. Both men and women have come to view sex as having absolutely no correlation with procreation. It is viewed as unfair to have sex and then make a baby. Nearly all care and responsibility for sex has eroded, resulting in skyrocketing STD rates. It is not a growing phenomenon that men and women no longer know how to date, let alone engage in courtship. They can swipe left or right, but have absolutely no idea how to go about finding a life partner. It’s even considered a turn off, now, to say you’re looking to get married. Casual sex is supposed to be cool. And meaningless.

    Men and women have the right to sleep with whatever consenting adult they want. There is a price to pay for that, however. Lack of emotional connection, failure to form lasting bonds, lack of fulfillment, the danger of sleeping with a psycho, the danger of an innocent person being accused of rape, the danger of getting raped or murdered by the stranger you hook up with, STDs (rising to a shocking degree), and unwanted pregnancies. While birth control can reduce the risk of pregnancy, there are a whole slew of risks associated with casual sex.

    For the past 40 years or so, women have eschewed getting married young. They say they’re just having fun. Then one day they hit 35, and panic. They’re single, not dating anyone special, and realize they only have a few years to find a good man, date, get engaged, get married, AND get pregnant before they turn 40. That’s about when they learn that anyone over age 35 is called advanced maternal age, and already at higher risk for genetic abnormalites. The men who wanted to get married…already did get married. All that’s left are the firm bachelors or multiple divorcees. After all that time of preventing pregnancy, they’re in a panic to find a good man (all gone) and have a healthy pregnancy. If they can’t find someone, these busy working women try single motherhood, and discover how incredibly difficult it is to raise a kid on your own.

    This doesn’t mean anyone should get married at 18 if they aren’t interested. However, society currently pressures young women NOT to get married, and to have a lot of casual sex, but does not inform them of the price.

    1. Rowe v Wade did NOT create a NEW right. It TRANSFERRED rights FROM the states which already had the rights under the 10th Amendment. That was an illegal act by our Supreme Court. They did not have the authority to transfer rights under the Constitution.
      It was the biggest CON of the 20th Century.

      1. Rowe v Wade did NOT create a NEW right. It TRANSFERRED rights FROM the states which already had the rights under the 10th Amendment.

        A small semantic correction. States do not have rights. People have rights. States have powers. Which is all powers but those powers as enumerated to the Federal government by the Constitution as ratified by the STATES
        I think it is important to remember it is the United States of America, not the united people. until well after the Civil War, people identified themselves by their State Identity. Not National identity.

        1. Actually, men and women have the same constitutional rights.

          Abortion and the unborn were never mentioned in the Constitution. Many thought it was judicial overreach and legislating from the bench to stretch the Constitution to include abortion, thus entirely skipping the legislative process.

          Is there some reason you don’t want voters to handle this issue? The Supreme Court is mostly male, while the American population has slightly more females. So, would you rather have a female majority vote on this issue, or an unelected 9 member, male majority Court?

          The Left: Most Americans polled support Roe v Wade.

          Also the Left: Allowing voters to decide abortion issues is a war on women.

          Do they not believe their own polls on voters’ position on abortion?

          Democrats absolutely excel at communication. They have falsely represented this issue as if repealing Roe v Wade automatically makes all abortions illegal in the US. It doesn’t. It simply gives voters control to decide what they want. Democrat polls show that most Americans support keeping Roe v Wade, because most think without it, abortion would be illegal. Polls also show, however, that most Americans support limitations not currently allowed under Roe v Wade. They don’t know Roe v Wade prevents this. Through carefully crafted rhetoric, and controlling most news and social media coverage, Democrats have ensured that most voters are misinformed.

          1. Republicans can be complacent, in the rightness of their cause. They can sagely and truthfully point out that repealing Roe v Wade would not make abortion illegal, and that most Americans support limitations not currently allowed under Roe v Wade. However, if most voters never learn these truths, then Democrats will win the communications war.

            Conservatives are terrible at reaching voters who don’t read or watch conservative news. If you allow the other side to explain what you stand for, you’ve already lost.

          2. Yes, Karen, I know that men also have 9th and 14th Amendment rights. You clearly missed my point: state powers are not all that matter, as some rights are reserved to people — in this case, to pregnant women.

            You ask “Is there some reason you don’t want voters to handle this issue?,” and I’ll ask a rhetorical question in return: do you want voters determining your speech rights? religious rights? due process rights? …

            I believe that women have 9th and 14th Amendment rights to abortion prior to viability (and in very limited cases, after), and I don’t believe that those rights should be tossed to voters to decide. They won’t be decided by voters anyway, but by legislators.

            We already see states that will outlaw abortion almost entirely. Look at Louisiana’s new fetal personhood bill, which their House Republicans voted out of committee 7–2, makes abortion a crime of homicide “from the moment of fertilization,” and allows prosectors to charge patients with murder. A broader overview: https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2021/10/26-states-are-certain-or-likely-ban-abortion-without-roe-heres-which-ones-and-why

            Do you want a doctor worrying about whether s/he’s going to be prosecuted for a previability abortion to save a woman’s life? Do you want pharmacists saying that they won’t provide misoprostol to a woman who’s had a miscarriage, just in case it’s actually for an elective abortion? Do you want women investigated for possible murder after a miscarriage? Do you want to force a woman to continue a pregnancy that’s likely to result in a later miscarriage (which is more dangerous)/stillbirth/death shortly after birth combined with pain or hundreds of seizures or … in the interim?

            Read this couple’s story, and tell me if you’d have forced this woman to give birth had she not had a late miscarriage:
            https://twitter.com/wtadler/status/1521167627833552899

            Voters aren’t misinformed by Democrats any more than they are by Repblicans, so drop that garbage.

    2. “Most Americans polled want to keep Roe v Wade.”

      – Karen+S
      ________

      Many “Americans” have no concept of what it means to be American, and many “Americans” are illegal aliens and foreign hyphenates in America – who let them in?
      ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      “the people are nothing but a great beast…

      I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

      – Alexander Hamilton
      _________________

      “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
      “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

      – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
      _______________________________________

      Turnout in 1788 was 11.6% by design.

    3. “State voters would decide state law”

      No, in general, state legislatures would decide state law. Don’t assume that the voters and the legislatures choose similarly, since there’s plenty of evidence that that doesn’t happen for diverse reasons (gerrymandering, intermittent voters, …)

      “The law would follow the will of the people in the democratic process.”

      Do you believe that all federal legislation represents the will of the people?

      “a perfectly fair law would be, that balances the rights of the unborn child with those of the mother”

      The unborn have never had rights.

      What rights do you want them to have? Do you want the Constitution amended to count them as people in the census? …

      1. Anonymous:

        You’re right. It’s not direct vote on most issues in states. However, voters choose state politicians, who would hopefully have a clear platform on key issues like this.

        You asked if I believe all federal legislation represents the will of the people. Depends, of course. Sometimes Congress votes, and then those politicians get voted out of office. Sometimes, voters complain bitterly, but keep voting for the same politicians who perpetuate this. Voters are still ultimately responsible, however.

        CA is a good example, on a state scale. So many Democrats complain bitterly about the cost of gas, and the rising cost of all goods and services that are transported using fuel. Yet they keep voting for Democrats, who jack up gas prices. That’s their responsibility, however. Then there are those Democrats who are appalled at the high cost of Obamacare, which costs as much as a mortgage, or the $12,000 deductible, or the fact that most doctors do not accept individual Obamacare policies. Yet they keep voting for Democrats who defend Obamacare. Again, that’s their responsibility.

        You say the unborn don’t have rights, and you can certainly make that case. However, the unborn definitely have value. You can sue a pharmaceutical company for birth defects you suffered when you were exposed to their drug en utero, when it was prescribed to your mother. In some states, if someone attacks a pregnant woman, and kills the child, that is charged as a homicide. How can it be a homicide if the unborn child had no right to not be harmed?

        Then there is the difference between a legal right, and a moral one.

        The vast, overwhelming majority of Americans believe there is a gestational limit in which the unborn’s right to live supersedes the mother’s right to choose what to do with her body. That figure gets higher and higher with each passing gestational week. Most Americans, for example, think that a healthy 9 month old fetus has the right not to be deliberately killed just before he breathes air.

        There’s right and wrong, and then there’s the law. The two do not always coincide.

        1. I’m one of the many Americans who believe there is a gestational limit in which the state’s power to limit abortion (not the “unborn’s ‘right,”” as they have none) supersedes the mother’s right to choose what to do with her body, and I place that at viability, with 2 exceptions: serious risk to the mother’s life or longterm health, and situations where the fetus is newly diagnosed with a condition that is likely to result in a later miscarriage (which is more dangerous)/stillbirth/death shortly after birth combined with serious neonatal medical problems (pain, hundreds of seizures, …) in the interim.

          Again, read this couple’s story, and tell me if you’d have forced this woman to give birth had she not had a late miscarriage:
          https://twitter.com/wtadler/status/1521167627833552899

          I see that you couldn’t bring yourself to say what rights you *do* want an embryo to have.

          1. I want the unborn to have the power to exercise age appropriate rights. 12 year olds can not buy a gun. Despite “shall not be infringed” is an enumerated right. The right to Life is age appropriate.

            1. Then develop an artificial uterus and a means of transplantation, and you can support its life yourself without using a woman’s uterus against her will.

  13. I don’t understand Roberts’s reported position. I don’t understand how you can uphold the Mississippi law without overruling Roe and Casey.

    1. Lysias,

      According to reports (which might or might not be accurate), he’s arguing that there’s a constitutional right to abortion, but viability is not the correct line to draw for where states can proscribe it. So Roe and Casey would be upheld in part, unlike Alito’s draft.

      1. In oral argument, Roberts was looking for a way to draw a line based on the idea of providing a woman sufficient time to make a choice. This, he believes, would be the appropriate conceptual basis to give effect to a constitutional right to choose arising somehow out of the 14th amendment as a fundamental liberty. He could avoid drawing a line and simply uphold 15 weeks as enough time.

      2. So Roe and Casey would be upheld in part, unlike Alito’s draft.

        And the next State will pass a law setting the limit at 12 weeks. or 9 weeks, or heartbeat.
        Law suits will be filed and SCOTUS will again be forced to summon the emanation, and penumbra to divine what exactly makes a 15 week cut off constitutional, and 12 week cut off un-constitutional.

        That is the idiocy Blackman and SCOTUS foisted on the nation with Roe. Now is the time to end it.

    2. I guess it’s kinda like upholding ACA by saying the penalty is a tax when Obama specifically said it wasn’t a tax. Or like the SCOTUS allowing racial discrimination in Affirmative Action even though they previously ruled racial discrimination was unconstitutional. There are no limits to what a human mind can rationalize in order to do what it wants.

  14. Just to clarify, protesting Congress at the Capitol on Jan 6th, which turned into trespassing, illegal parading, and in some cases, interfering with Congress, was an insurrection and treason, but encouraging people to terrorize Supreme Court Justices in their private homes, in order to intimidate them to change their ruling, is a civic duty.

    1. No, Karen: Jan 6th was a well-planned and coordinated event to prevent Joe Biden from taking office, with the full engagement of Trump and his campaign. There was nothing to “protest” on Jan 6th, other than the fact that Trump lost. Jan 6th was Trump’s last stand and came after Trump couldn’t get state election officials to falsify vote counts, after 60+ courts dismissed his lawsuits for lack of evidence and after he couldn’t bully Mike Pence into ignoring his Constitutional duty. If you watched anything other than Hannity, you’d know this. There’s telephonic proof that the Proud Boys were communicating with someone at the White House.

      No one has “terrorized” any “Justice”: protesting is allowed by the First Amendment. No one has committed any crimes or has been arrested.

      1. No, Karen: Jan 6th was a well-planned and coordinated event to prevent Joe Biden from taking office,

        Except for the planning and coordination parts

      2. Natacha:

        Did you read the FBI report about the lack of planning for almost all of them?

      3. You are delusional as well as full of disinformation.
        In 2016,The Democrats did the same thing that they accused Trump of. They tried to change electors votes and Congressmen objected to certain electors.
        Further, Trump made no statement that had not been uttered by numerous other policticians, so your incitement allegation is frivolous. Consequently, the January 6 Commission is strictly political. Democrats had no outcry for an investigation when Democrats took over the Wisconsin Capitol overrunning its police for days, and further had no outcry when the Democrats attempted to invade the Supreme Court during the Kavanaugh hearings.
        Grow up. Quit misrepresenting your biased, fallacious opinions as fact.

        1. That’s a bald-faced lie. Not only did Clinton acknowledge the loss of the election the day after it was announced, but no one at any time made up the story that the VP could reject electoral votes.

          1. No lie. You are the liar. Do your homework. Numerous Congressmen appeared in 2016 at the counting and tried to object to electors to prevent Trump from being elected.
            Once again, you misrepresent your false opinion as fact.

            1. I didn’t write that no Democrats objected to any states votes. Not only are you a liar, you’re a very poor reader.

              1. You clearly implied it in your all inclusive ridiculous allegations. You’re still a liar.

                1. I made no such implication. You inferred it, because you’re an idiot, and you assume that means everyone else must be as well.
                  Sorry, but that’s also incorrect.

                  1. So then you admit that in 2016 the Democrats and their protestors engaged in the same conduct as the Republicans and their protestors engaged in 2020.

      4. Try reading the law. You are full of disinformation.
        Jury tampering is prohibited. It is not covered by the First Amendment. Jury tampering is codified in Federal Statutes to not only cover jurors, but also judges.
        Quit misrepresenting your fallacious opinion as fact.

Leave a Reply