Legal analysts and news network experts are scrambling to decipher Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s intentions when he wrote an ominous line in his concurring opinion for Gamble v. United States, released Monday. The implications, many agree, represent an initial baseline for addressing Roe v. Wade.

“When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it,” he wrote.

With the likelihood of abortion laws passed in states across the country setting up a near-future examination of the 46-year-old abortion legalization decree, the timing of Thomas’s mention of precedent is conspicuous.

Kristen Clarke, the President and Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, told Fox News that Thomas’ comments were part of a larger attack on abortion rights.

“One can’t ignore the timing of Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion which comes at a moment when we are seeing a coordinated and relentless attack on Roe v. Wade across the country,” Clarke said. “The laws that have been adopted in several states violate the Court’s settled precedent in Roe. In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas has made clear his willingness to reject precedents that he personally deems incorrect, a position that unnecessarily politicizes the Court.

Opinion

We can debate all day (and I often do) about whether or not abortion is acceptable. As an adamant pro-lifer, clearly I do not think it is. But one thing that should not be up for debate is whether or not this is a state issue. Healthcare laws generally fall to the states despite attempts to impose single-payer healthcare on us, so the chants by pro-abortionists that it’s a women’s healthcare issue belies the need for it to be a national law.

The divided opinions on whether or not a fetus has rights, the role choice at multiple levels plays into abortion decisions, and at what stage an abortion becomes too barbaric is the very reason Roe v. Wade is obsolete. Is abortion healthcare? If so, then laws pertaining to it must be decided by the states. With no consensus about the status of a human being at the earliest stages of life, allowing federal laws to blanket it removes the righteous debate that must be held continuously as more knowledge becomes available.

There are arguments that this should not be a religious issue, but it’s false to claim there are no arguments against abortion outside of religion. If anything, the fact that we’re still debating it on scientific, ethical, and philosophical grounds is a clear indicator the debate must continue. That cannot happen in its fullest form as long as Roe v. Wade is the standing precedent.

Quote

“The Constitution tasks the political branches—not the Judiciary—with systematically developing the laws that govern our society. The Court’s role, by contrast, is to exercise the ‘Judicial Power,’ faithfully interpreting the Constitution and the laws enacted by those branches.” – Clarence Thomas

Final Thoughts

Abortion legalization at the national level is demonstrably erroneous, fitting Thomas’s definition of precedent that should not be followed. Could abortion laws finally be left solely to states? Stay tuned.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

There are few issues in which the far-right and far-left normally agree. But one issue in particular makes so much sense, one has to wonder why those in the mushy middle are so opposed to it. The issue is over-the-counter birth control, and the solution is simple: allow it.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) are in near-agreement on an issue for the second time in two weeks. Both sides want birth control easily acceptable, and others are joining in on the bipartisanship.

I agree. Perhaps, in addition to the legislation we are already working on together to ban Members of Congress from becoming lobbyists, we can team up here as well. A simple, clean bill making birth control available over the counter. Interested? https://t.co/7kh3kqxN1w

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 12, 2019

Hi there @tedcruz hit up our girl @pattymurray she and I have already written the bill, album dropping tomorrow 😉 @AOC's vocals (& original co sponsorship) = on point. @KatieHill4CA’s an original too. Just call it the Destiny's Child of OTC birth control https://t.co/Ri2q1Viez4

— Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) June 12, 2019

The only issue seems to be cost. Cruz wants a “clean and simple bill” while Democrats are pushing for full funding, either mandated in healthcare plans, cost-subsidized by the government, or both. This is, of course, a huge sticking point as it’s very unlikely many Republicans would vote for subsidies or mandates and it’s unlikely Democrats would vote for a bill that excluded them.

It seems bipartisanship stops at the wallet.

As Beth Baumann noted at Town Hall, this impasse isn’t new.

Republicans introduced a bill back in 2014 that would make birth control available over-the-counter. They didn’t include a provision that required health insurance to cover it though. And that was an issue for Democrats.

Pressley’s bill would make birth control available over-the-counter, without a prescription from a doctor, but there would be a requirement for health insurance to pay for it.

These are two separate issues. Making birth control available over-the-counter should happen with or without the insurance mandate. Then, the can debate funding for birth control in a future healthcare debate. There’s no need to keep it locked behind the counter while politicians debate costs. Availability and cost are completely different aspects that shouldn’t be tied together by artificial bonds.

It’s ironic far-left Democrats are holding birth control access hostage while pushing to add health insurance mandates. One might start wondering if they really care about women’s rights outside of the political implications.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

Senator Bernie Sanders is detached from reality. I didn’t realize it until today when I learned he told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that a lot of people would be “delighted” to pay more in taxes if it meant free healthcare.

Here’s the full quote:

“Yeah, but I suspect that a lot of people in the country would be delighted to pay more in taxes if they had comprehensive health care as a human right. I live 50 miles away from the Canadian border. You go to the doctor any time you want. You don’t take out your wallet. You have heart surgery, you have a heart transplant and you come out of the hospital and it costs you nothing.”

Let’s break that down. Bear with me, as there’s a lot to cover.

First, no human alive, regardless of how they feel about government programs, is delighted when forced to pay more in taxes. Nobody gets their tax bill and says, “Oh, my lucky stars! I got to pay more taxes than I did before. This is wonderful! I’m delighted!”

Next, we get to the qualifying caveat, “if they had comprehensive health care as a human right.”

As caveats go, it’s one that can seem appealing on the surface. It has the two important phrases used by progressives across the board now: “comprehensive health care” and “human right.” There has been an indoctrination that has spread throughout a large portion of the population from progressives to moderates to conservatives. This indoctrination has made people believe they do not have comprehensive health care and it’s somehow their right to have it as a human.

Today, we have that right. Whether through the state, their employer, or paying as an individual, every American has access to comprehensive health care. It is too expensive for some, but again the state has inserted itself into the equation already with Obamacare. The horror stories of people losing their access to health care are overblown and oftentimes demonstrably false.

As far as it all being a right, that’s debatable. Many conservatives like to point out it’s a commodity and that emergency care is already guaranteed to everyone. But I do not believe that’s the right approach to argue against the current push for programs like Medicare-for-All. Those who choose to not pay for their health coverage and who refuse to go through the steps to get their health coverage given to them by the state are making a concerted effort to deny their own access to health insurance. It’s not something we go out and buy on a whim, so labeling it as a commodity is misleading. It is a commodity by definition, but as we try to win the narrative battle, ignoring the inherent differences between health coverage and gold or orange juice is a mistake.

Rather than view it as a right, it should be viewed as a privilege made available in varying degrees to every American, even those who cannot afford to pay for it. That just makes more sense in winning hearts and minds than calling it a commodity.

Now, we get to the juicy fallacies in the Senator’s argument. He lives close to Canada. Great! That means he likely gets to see Canadians in his neck of the woods coming to America to have procedures done. Why? Because of the demonstrably false claim that “you go to the doctor any time you want.” No, Senator. They don’t. They are extremely limited in when they can go to the doctor, how much time they can spend with their doctor, and what their doctor can offer them at that moment. They don’t have the same luxury we have of wanting to have procedures like elective knee surgery without being forced to suffer through the pain for months or years before they can get on the operating table.

That’s one reason so many from Canada, the United Kingdom, and other “single-payer utopias” are coming here. They don’t want to wait. The other reason is they’re learning the quality of care is deteriorating as it is wont to do whenever government pushes aside the free market to make everything they touch mediocre.

The last part is the one that would make most conservatives chuckle if we weren’t so worried about it becoming a reality. He said Americans would get all sorts of health care from checkups to major operations and it wouldn’t cost us anything. Actually, Senator, that’s not true. It would cost us everything.

What Bernie Sanders fails to realize is his plans would reduce quality of care, increase overall costs through taxation, and drive our problematic healthcare system to the edge of collapse. Then again, maybe he does realize this.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.