Is Pro-Life Now Hate Speech?

Below is my column in The Hill on a shift in the rhetoric in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe v. Wade. From politicians to pundits, pro-life positions are being treated as virtual hate speech. The demonization of those with pro-life views is meant to cut off any debate on the basis or scope of abortion rights. It is the latest attack on free speech as critics seek to silence those with opposing views.

Here is the column:

With the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade, it is no longer enough to be pro-choice. Indeed, the term “pro-choice” has been declared harmful by the now ironically named “Pro-Choice Caucus.” Today, it seems you must be anti-pro-life to be truly pro-choice — and, across the country, pro-life viewpoints are being declared virtual hate speech.

We have seen this pattern before.

With the rise of the racial justice movement on campuses across the country in 2020, a mantra emerged that it was no longer enough to not be a racist, you must be anti-racist. As National Public Radio’s media critic explained, “you’ve got to be continually working towards equality for all races, striving to undo racism in your mind, your personal environment and the wider world.”

Similarly, after the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it seems, you must be anti-pro-life and stop others from voicing their views.

On Sunday, almost half of the University of Michigan’s incoming medical school class walked out of a “White Coat Ceremony” to protest keynote speaker Dr. Kristin Collier. Collier was not planning to discuss abortion, but — because she holds pro-life views — students launched an unsuccessful campaign to block her from speaking.

The cancel-campaign petition had the usual nod to free speech before calling for it to be gutted. According to the Michigan Daily, the petition — signed by hundreds of incoming, current and past students — declared that “while we support the rights of freedom of speech and religion, an anti-choice speaker as a representative of the University of Michigan undermines the University’s position on abortion and supports the non-universal, theology-rooted platform to restrict abortion access, an essential part of medical care.” In other words: We support a diversity of viewpoints so long as we don’t have to hear any opposing views.

Ironically, until four years ago, Collier was “a pro-choice atheist” who admitted that she had “great animosity towards those who held either pro-life views or deeply held religious commitments.” When she held those views, she was a celebrated professor with a long line of publications in peer-reviewed journals. She then had a conversion on the issue after speaking with a senior faculty colleague, Dr. William Chavey, a professor of family medicine who was pro-life — and she quickly became persona non grata.

She is not alone at the university. A week earlier, a campaign was launched to fire football head coach Jim Harbaugh after he declared, “I believe in having the courage to let the unborn be born.”

Harbaugh is accustomed to penalty calls for unnecessary roughness on the field, but nothing likely prepared him for what came next. While he is widely known to be a devout Catholic, his public statement of his values was considered an outrage by some and made his continuation as coach unacceptable to them, even though he just signed a five-year, $36.7 million contract.

In addition to calls for his termination, Harbaugh was accused of being “full of deep seething hatred of women” and “publicly expressing his distaste for women’s rights.” The liberal Palmer Report posted (with thousands of “likes”) that “no one who actively attempts to deny women their most basic rights should ever be allowed to hold a position of influence at a public university … He’s a public employee. Fire his ass.”

Actually, being a public employee is one reason Harbaugh was not fired. As a public university, Michigan is subject to the full weight of the First Amendment.

Many others are not protected like Harbaugh, however. Some pro-life workers face long, hard fights against companies eager to satisfy pro-choice advocates. In 2017, Charlene Carter, a former Southwest Airlines flight attendant, was fired for posting criticism of the Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) and its president, Audrey Stone, for their pro-choice positions. Southwest allegedly told Carter that Stone and the union contacted the company and cited her comments as threatening or harassing; Southwest then fired her. Five years later, this month, she was awarded more than $5 million for her wrongful termination.

There is an obvious effort to portray pro-life views as inherently threatening, making most any countermeasures justified. Recently, some pro-life centers and churches have been attacked. Even some crisis pregnancy centers, offering support to pregnant women and alternatives to abortion, have been denounced as a threat to women. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has declared that “crisis pregnancy centers … are there to fool people who are looking for pregnancy termination help. … We need to shut them down here in Massachusetts, and we need to shut them down all around the country. You should not be able to torture a pregnant person like that.”

Sen. Warren, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and other Democrats in Congress have sponsored a bill that would shut such centers and hit charities with fines of $100,000 or “50 percent of the revenues earned by the ultimate parent entity” for violating the act’s “prohibition on disinformation” related to abortion.

Similar crackdowns are being pushed by some Democratic governors. Michigan’s Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) vetoed $20 million in funding for groups and advertising offering non-abortion resources and counseling. Such counseling efforts were denounced as “deceptive” attempts to “prey” on women.

While some activists have previously argued that pro-life views or advertisements like “abortion hurts women” constitute “hate speech,” the Supreme Court has refused to allow such laws as the Ku Klux Klan Act to be used against abortion protesters as being motivated by a “class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.”

Demonizing pro-life viewpoints avoids the need to deal with abortion’s details. While a majority today support Roe, an even greater number support limits on abortion. A recent poll conducted by Harvard found that 72 percent of Americans would allow abortion only until the 15th week of pregnancy or support an even more restrictive law. That view transcends party affiliation; even 60 percent of Democrats believe abortion should be prohibited after the 15th week or a more restrictive limit.

Yet, clearly, some do not want to have a debate of the issue while pushing virtually absolute rights to abortion. It is far easier to attack those who voice pro-life views as monolithic, “theology-rooted” extremists. One benefit in being anti-pro-life is that you can be anti-free-speech — all in the name of being pro-choice.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

257 thoughts on “Is Pro-Life Now Hate Speech?”

  1. “Olly, that decision by the Court could also affect the regulation of food and drugs. Are you okay with that?”

    Absolute!!! – abolish the FDA they have been a total disaster since their creation.
    They have made us less safe, less healthy. They have made the creation and discovery of new medicines prohibitively expensive.

    If you are worried about your safety – the Covid mess should make it clear that “the experts” are clueless.

    Regardless, you are still fully protected by torts.

    “And how functional is Congress? In the time it took Congress to pass that subsidy to computer chips, the Chinese have leapfrogged past us in chip development.”
    Both false and irrelevant. China has not leapfrogged the US. The most cutting edge chips are still designed and produced in the US.
    The next step behind those are produced in places like Taiwan and South Korea.

    We are scared right now that China might invade Taiwan – that is because 10% of global chips – and not the most advanced, come from china.
    40% come from Taiwan.

    But lets assume the Chinese actually do leap frog us – so what ?

    The success of one nation or company do not preclude the success of another.

    As to the CHIPS act – government should stay out of the economy PERIOD.
    There is plenty of private capital to fund semiconductors.
    We are talking about an incredibly lucrative investment.
    The last thing we want is the kind of people who made the rules for Covid making the rules for semi-conductor development.

    1. When in the world are we going to be smart enough to regain control of the language? Pro-choice is actually Pro-death, and we must term it thus without hesitation and width conviction. Throw it back in their faces! In every abortion, at least one human being dies, regardless of motive or circumstance. Follow the science, without moral prejudice.

      The most current U.S. population growth rate statistic was a first-ever 1.8%. That’s a cultural death spiral from which recovery has been historically impossible. We’ve killed two generations worth of humans. Adolf Hitler and other historic murderers are smiling.

      Margaret Sanger was a racist eugenist, and put her clinics first in poor black neighborhoods, Marxism is all about Utopianism and godless existence. I doubt that the fully indoctrinated women, both young and old, are critical thinkers, and would crumble into incoherent meaningless rants when challenged. We must fight to re-educate these misguided souls by pointing out their insipid folly, laughing at them, and treating them like the mental children they are. He evil flesh traffickers need to be deprived of their audience and money.

      It all begins with the language of truth that guides the mind back to reality.

      1. Jan,

        We saw what the Chinese did over fears of population growth.

        Most of us are not noting the massive reversal of policy in china as they realize that negative growth and the harms from that are incipient.

        I have little doubt that in a generation or so the same post-modern progressives that are selling us abortion and a panopoly of non-reproductive sexuality will reverse course completely as the Chinese have faced with the negative impact of declining and aging populations.

        Whether we like it or not – the survivial of the species is a powerful instinct.

        Human societies are to a very large extent unique. We not merely tolerate by thrive on significant diversity.
        But it is very dangerous when the fringe becomes the norm.

        Bill Mahr joked about the fact that in a generation everyone will be trans or Bi or …..

        But all of this works together to a point where it threatens the survival of the species.

        I fully expect the very same leftists selling us intersectionaltiy and genders out the wahzoo to be threatening to jail us for non-reproductive sexuality in a few decades.

        The left has no principle underpinning it. It is a chaotic collection of values – an values are NOT immutable, they are not principles.
        Without principles – 180 degree swings on values are trivial.

  2. Nope, it takes us back to 1972 – pretty much exactly.

    Your claim that it prevents doctors from providing best care – is laden with values assumptions.

    Should a doctor recommend that a women kill her newborn infant – if that is her best care ?

    Often that may well be the best thing for the woman.
    But almost no one considers it “best care”

    Your arguments presumes we are all malignant narcisists thinking always and only of ourselves.

  3. Jonathan: There is more on the abortion front as those in the fight against abortion are coming up with creative ways to preserve a woman’s right to an abortion. Dr. Meg Autry, a native of Mississippi and OBGYN in California, has a plan. She is planning to set up a clinic on a boat in federal waters–somewhere in the Caribbean between Florida and Texas. It will serve women who reside in the states that have banned abortion. No need to fly to California. There are always ways to avoid the reach of abortion laws in the states. Can’t think of a better cause for my next charitable donation.

    In West Virginia GOP lawmakers are considering their own abortion bill that will revive a 150 year-old law prohibiting abortion in almost all cases. There were a number of people who spoke out during the debate on the bill. One was Addison Gardner, a 12 yr. old middle schooler, who addressed the lawmakers: “Am I to put my body through the physical trauma of pregnancy? Am I to suffer the mental implications, as a child, who had no say in what was being done with my body? Some here say they are pro-life. What about my life? Does my life not matter to you?” Despite Gardner’s pleas the bill passed 69-23. That’s what I suppose is “progress” in West Virginia.

    Finally, Justice Alito this week gave the keynote address to the Notre Dame Religious Liberty Summit held in Rome. While he did not address his Dobbs decision directly he did mock foreign leaders, like Boris Johnson, who called the decision a “step backwards”. Alito said Johnson “paid the price” for his comments. Alito went on to complain about threats to “religious liberty”. He insisted religion promotes “domestic tranquility”. A strange phrase considering the turmoil and blowback from demonstrations all over the country against his decision in Dobbs. Alito said it was “honor” to write the decision and take away a 50 yr. old Court precedent. Thanks to Alito, the US is now one of only 4 countries to have rolled back abortion rights–the others being El Salvador, Nicaragua and Poland. Most other countries, including those in European democracies, have been expanding abortion rights. Alito apparently thinks it was better in the 17th century under the European monarchies.

    1. Build abortion clinics on Boats in the Caribbean if you want.

      With respect to Addison Gardener – What I expect is that adults are not going to be encouraging 12 yr olds to have sex.

      If you are not prepared to have children, and start a family – you are not ready to have sex.

      This is not basketball or video games. We do not allow children to drive until they are 16, we do not allow them to vote until 18, to drink until 21. Sex is not for 12yr olds. If you are raped – the morning after pill is provided whether you are 12 or 40.
      If you are choosing to have sex at 12 you are making a huge mistake and it is not the responsibility of state legislators to save you from the consequences of your mistakes.

      It is well documented that key CHOICES determine our children’s futures – not their race, not their class.

      If you wish to end up in the middle class – or better.
      Finish school.
      Do not get pregnant or get someone pregnant before you are ready for a family.
      Get a job – any job to start.
      When you have finished school, and have a decent job, Now you are ready to marry. To have a child, to form a family, to buy a home.

      The single most important predictor of future success is your ability to delay gratification. To choose larger future rewards over immidiate gratification.

      Ms. Gardner has not learned that at all. That is a failure of parenting and a failure of her schools.

    2. Weird argument regarding Dobbs.

      So christians and other religious groups are responsible for the violence of those opposed to them ?

      It is not deeply religious people that have attacked over 100 crisis pregnancy centers in the country.

    3. Prior to Dobbs the US was only one of very few nations with the lax abortion laws we had.

      In much of Europe abortion is legal but the requirements are much the same as the Mississippi law that was being tested with Dobb’s

      Nations with unrestricted abortions are those like China where over 350million children were aborted – many in the 9th month.

    4. No european countries have not been expanding abortion.

      Generally developed countries throughout the world have done much as the US has and slowly incrementally narrowed the window in which abortion is legal, commensurate with our increasing medical abilities, improved contraception and morning after pills.

      Abortion is the most expensive and dangerous solution to women’s control of their own reproduction. Everything else is safer and cheaper.

      As a rule I support individual liberty. If you want to inject heroin – you should be free to do so. But you are responsible for the consequences of your own choices.

      Do not have sex until you are ready for intimate relationships, and starting a family.
      If you choose to do so anyway – do so responsibly.
      Those on the left have told us for decades that we had to fund sex education in our schools
      If that sex education has not worked at teaching kids to make wise decisions – get rid of it.
      If it has worked – then we should not need abortion.

      Regardless, when children result for the wise or stupid choices of people – we expect those who engaged in the process to take responsibility for the results.
      If you do not want to have kids – you have lots of options that are easier and safer than abortion.
      Make them.

      Responsibility for the good and bad choices you make is the price of freedom.

      No one has taken reproductive freedom away from women. Just an expensive and dangerous option if they made a poor choice.

  4. There is another side effect of abortion. The man has no responsibility whatsoever. He can sire children and then pressure women to abort them. It’s actually quite common for relatives and significant others to pressure women to abort unplanned pregnancies.

    I have known multiple women whose husbands or boyfriends pressured them to get abortions. Problem is that the woman has to live with that decision.

    This is an aspect of abortion that I think the Pro Choice crowd should consider. This is also why I think unbiased counseling that does not push either option, but gives accurate information on the benefits and consequences of both, could benefit women. Actually, “unbiased” might be impossible, given that people have such strong opinions. Perhaps it would be good to allow Pro Life and Pro Choice groups to each put together materials for women to review on their own in a counseling office. I remember when I grew up in public schools, I was conditioned to think of a fetus as a “ball of cells.” That’s a phrase you’ll hear over and over. It’s strange, since I’d taken biology courses. Yet if you’d asked me what I thought of a first trimester pregnancy, I would have immediately answered “ball of cells.” I remember being so struck by my ultrasound of my own pregnancy. My child had a heart beat like a hummingbird, and would move in response to the pressure of the ultrasound wand. He was swimming in a sea inside me. This was an early ultrasound of around 10 weeks. Later, I recall reading about an abortion debate, and all of a sudden, I thought…People are talking about abortions at 10 weeks, 12 weeks, like it’s nothing. Like it’s a “ball of cells.” They called 2nd trimester fetuses “pieces of tissue” or “parasites.” Wait a minute. I remember getting multiple ultrasounds during my pregnancy. I remember excitedly reviewing gestational stages, and seeing how far along my baby would be every week. Wait. He wasn’t a “ball of cells” or a “piece of tissue.” The ball of cells is the blastula stage, which is before a woman even knows she’s pregnant. The baby sucks his thumb by 12 weeks. Even if he’s too small to feel it, he’s kicking and moving around in there long before quickening, when you can really feel a baby kick.

    I didn’t really think to much about abortion. I assumed you couldn’t get one if you were too far along, and that no one would even try unless there was some horrific reason. I made a lot of assumptions. I remember being sickened reading about the infamous case of Kermit Gosnell, who aborted so many third trimester, healthy babies. He went to prison for killing babies born alive after an attempted abortion, and for breaking numerous health code violations. I thought women wouldn’t want to hurt a healthy fetus so far along in pregnancy, but apparently there was a line when the opportunity was presented.

    I suspect that a lot of women out there protesting, or angry at the idea of legislating abortion just like any other law, have the same assumptions and lack of introspection that I used to. I just never thought about it and assumed women would make the right decision for themselves. The older I got, the more I realized that a certain percentage of the 7.5 billion people on Earth, man or woman, are not good people. And a certain percentage of good people sometimes make selfish, thoughtless, or harmful decisions.

    Abortion motivation often falls into these categories. Convenience, eugenics, medical emergency, and rape.

    Convenience – women had consensual sex but don’t want a baby because they don’t feel ready, are still in college, busy working, not in a committed relationship, discovered they do not want to be tied to the father, feel overwhelmed, feel too busy, their family would judge them or be angry, shame at having unprotected sex, or not married. Is it ethical to kill someone else because you made an irresponsible decision or your birth control failed? It’s “getting rid” of a baby you find inconvenient. What if that was you in there, and your mother felt too busy to have you? What about all the mothers who felt overwhelmed when they learned they were pregnant, but now cannot imagine their life without their beloved son or daughter?

    Eugenics – women don’t want an imperfect baby. The abnormality might be a mild deformity or special need, or it might seriously impact the quality of life of the child, the parents, and the siblings. There’s no denying that a severely handicapped child will take most of a parent’s time and attention away from other siblings, which is very difficult for them. Some fetal abnormalities are survivable, barely, after birth, but the child will struggle for the rest of their shortened life. This is a eugenics and euthanasia argument. It has nothing to do with the health of the mother. This is a difficult topic. Not everyone would make the same decision, but most voters do have compassion for women struggling to decide what they want to do. Voters tend to give women more leeway with fetal abnormalities, whether or not they are compatible with life. Down Syndrome people have made the case before Congress that aborting DS babies is a literal genocide. They’re right. Down Syndrome people can have a great quality of life, and are often beloved. Voters can communicate with legislators what they feel would be most fair.

    Medical Emergency – there are plenty of medical emergencies that require early termination of a pregnancy by removal of the fetus. There is no reason to take the deliberate step to kill the fetus that would in any way benefit the mother’s help. If the fetus is viable, he or she survives. If it’s prior to viability, or there was an abnormality incompatible with life, then the fetus will not survive. In all 50 states, laws protect the life of the mother, including surgery for ectopic pregnancies. Claiming that a third trimester abortion is required to save the life of the mother is illogical. It takes 2 days, still requires labor and delivery, and carries more risk than a normal delivery. My own pregnancy became life threatening, and I delivered my child via emergency C-Section. Women have emergency C-Sections or induced labor with some regularity to deliver a baby due to pressing medical need of the mother.

    Rape – This tragedy happens all too often around the world. The product of sex, whether consensual or not, can be pregnancy. Such tragedies have inspired works like Tess of the d’Urbervilles. I personally find it unethical to kill an innocent child, given the fact the rapist doesn’t get the death penalty. It’s not the child’s fault. I believe I would think of it as MY child, my blood, my kin, but I have never been in that situation, so it’s frankly conjecture. One of my relatives was adopted, and we have no idea how he was conceived. What if he was the product of rape? Did he not deserve to live? However, I’m not in a position to judge a woman who cannot bear to carry a rapist’s child. Most voters have compassion for women in this situation.

  5. There is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices: sex or abstinence, contraception in depth, adoption (i.e. shared/shifted responsibility), and compassion (i.e. shared/personal responsibility). And an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. The wicked solution (i.e. human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes) is neither a good nor exclusive choice.

  6. Contrary to popular misconceptions, Roe was not overturned, but in a rational state, viability is established where baby meets granny in state, if not in process. However, the performance of human rites (e.g. murder) will progress in darkness and under the Pro-Choice ethical religion for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes.

  7. It might be helpful if right-wingers stopped trying to imply that only they are pro-life. That’s a childish attempt to portray those that don’t share their beliefs as somehow
    being undeserving of respect for their beliefs.

    1. Libertarians? Human rights is not presented as “right-wing”. However, transhumane rites, diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry) is the historical providence of ostensibly “secular” religions adopted by authoritarian (i.e. left-wing) regimes.

    2. The strong affintiy between pro-life and conservative is relatively new.

      Casey – one of the other decisions that Dobbs overturned was named after a pro-life democrat Pennsylvania governor.

      As to whether the left is pro-life or not. Increasingly the left is made of drones.

      While Bill Mahr is still ranting about population growth – the reality is population in most of the world is declining, The Earth’s population will peak at about 11B people, and decline after that. Already we are seeing the problems of declining population is fairly severe.

      I have little doubt that once declining populations prove a problem that the left determines that government must solve, that abortion will be illegal everywhere, Homosexuality and transgenderism will become taboo again.

      The core of the modern left is a pseudo scientistic religion.

      No one on the left should presume that as circumstrances change we will not see things we would have thought were principles and values on the left vaporize.

      This is what happens when there are no real moral foundations.

  8. The incivility began when those seeking abortion and their supporters were accused of being “murderers”. That escalated to killing doctors and bombing clinics. It doesn’t get more shrill.

    Considering that only once before (Prohibition) were Americans to have rights revoked, I’d say the response to Dobbs has been purposeful and civil. And, like Prohibition, once pro-life legislators see how ineffective their laws are, while interfering with needed health care, and alienating doctors, they’ll be forced to restore abortion rights.

    1. RE:” they’ll be forced to restore abortion rights.” The SCOTUS majority opinion held that :”The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives”. The dissent clearly chose not to view it in that light. Until Congress codifies abortion services under Federal law, provided it is not struck down, Individual States will decide what law is to be promulgated. In my view, what should be deemed unconstitutional is any law which criminalizes travel between states for the purpose of obtaining abortion services. Argue amongst yourselves at will. Here’s the analysis: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-1392

      1. “The SCOTUS majority opinion held that :’The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.'”

        Which means, of course, that those Justices do not understand the purpose of our Constitution.

        Their ignorance is revealed on three counts: 1) The Constitution does not “confer” rights. It recognizes (some of) them. 2) The Constitution is not a limitation on *private* action. It is not a list of permissions. It is a limitation on *government* action. 3) The Constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights.

        1. The Constitution is popularly recognized to deny rights to slavery (e.g. redistributive change), diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism), and performance of human rites (e.g. murder or homicide committed in darkness). However, it is a social compact with two named parties: “the People” and “our Posterity”, that proscribes government actions, which is why the federal sanction of human rites (i.e. murder) under the Twilight Amendment was overturned, and the right of slavery, diversity [dogma] (e.g. racism, sexism, ageism), clinical cannibalism, political congruence (“=”), and human rites, too, was partially returned to the state legislatures.

        2. The Constitution is not a limitation on *private* action. It is not a list of permissions. It is a limitation on *government* action

          There are no limitations on “private” action. EXCEPT for those limits created by the legislature (thou shall not murder)

          “it is a limit on *government* FEDERAL GOVERNMENT actions”… including actions of SCOTUS, federal legislature, and the Executive Branch

          1. “it is a limit on *government* FEDERAL GOVERNMENT actions”

            Someone does not grasp the meaning of a constitutionally limited *Republic*.

            It is sad to see R’s push such an obvious contradiction: “Unlimited majority rule for me (on abortion), but not for thee (on your pet issues).”

            1. “Unlimited majority rule for me (on abortion), but not for thee (on your pet issues).”

              Not sure what your trying to say. government regulation of abortion was a STATE power. not federal. That’s the part of the Constitution Roe ignored. It is not a majority rule issue. The legislature controls. The People in 2 election cycles will elect those the people want to represent their interests.

        3. Your analysis is excellent.

          But Dobb’s is still correct there is no right to an abortion.

          The closest that you can actually get is a right to control of your own body

      2. It is near certain that this SCOTUS will not uphold laws restricting travel between states.

    2. The incivility began when feminists and masculinists demanded to keep women affordable, available, and taxable through liberal exercise of abortion rites (e.g. witch trials) performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes.

      That said, the Pro-Choice ethical religion denies women and men’s dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities. Women and men have four choices, and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation.

      Casting couches, friendship with “benefits”, rape… rape-rape of ten year-old girls happens in darkness. Murder is killing in darkness, under a religious blanket of privacy. The wicked solution is neither a good nor exclusive choice and is discouraged in civilized societies. Elective abortion is politically congruent to, maybe, but is not health care.

    3. Considering that only once before (Prohibition) were Americans to have rights revoked,

      I don’t see booze mentioned in the Constitution.

      That is mostly irrelevant to the facts. THE PEOPLE, through amending the Constitution banned booze. No right was revoked (none existed) the people using the super majority of Citizens set the rules they wanted to live under. Then they changed their mind. Gee, not a judge in sight, and the people figured it out.

      You some how think the people requlating abortions is worse than 6 unelected oracles in black robes, forcing their beliefs on a nation is better. (Nope, not even close)

      1. While prohibition was a disaster – much as the modern drug war is.

        It still is a beautiful historical example of how to accomplish something that the constitution barrs.

        Amend the constitution. The prohibition amendment was a massive mistake – but it was done properly, and it failed, and we learned and we repealed it.

        If you want aboertion to be a right.
        If you want to set term limits on the courts,
        if you want to elect presidents by popular vote – amend the constitution.

        There appears to be only one change that you can not make to the constitution by amendment.
        Article V bars constitutional amendments that alter the way that states are represented in the Senate.

        1. Typo takes on a historical reflection 🙂

          “…you want aboertion to be a right.”

          –Louis Botha to Lord Kitchener, Pretoria 1902

    4. There is no requirement to be civil to others. The requirement is to follow the law.

      As to Abortion – if you wonder why pro-lifers call abortion murder – read about Dr. Gosnell.

      Regardless, Abortion is always intentional killing.

      Left or right it is impossible to avoid that all abortions are a choice by a woman to kill an embryo, a fetus, a child for the convenience of the woman.

      We can hold different views on the morality of that choice – but no matter what it is still a choice to kill for personal convenience.

      We can debate whether abortion should be legal. But Pres. Clinton was correct that it should be Rare.
      Further it should be early. All but the most rabid pro-lifer’s understand that preventing the implantation of a handful of cells is morally radically different than crushing the skull of a 9 month fetus.

      I expect that many red states will go to far in restricting abortion.
      Many blue states have already gone to far in allowing it.

    5. “Considering that only once before (Prohibition) were Americans to have rights revoked,”

      False. The thirteenth amendment ended the right to own slaves.

      All law restricts peoples rights.

      All legitimate law restricts our rights to kill or otherwise directly harm others.

      Illegitimate laws, unconstitutional laws, constrain our rights to act when our actions do not involve the use of force against others.
      Abortion does.

  9. Ironically, the demand for human rites or the wicked solution by feminists and masculinists followed with social progress (e.g. keep women affordable, available, and taxable; grooming of ten year-old girls), and the need for the lucrative trillion dollar welfare system is sustained through single/central/monopolistic solutions (e.g. Obamacares).

  10. The wicked solution has diverse precedents in ostensibly “secular” ethical religions. That said, in the future, women by Nature, simulations through corruption, and emulations by orientation, will not know human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, and fair weather causes. #HateLovesAbortion

Leave a Reply