Connect with us

Healthcare

Did Clarence Thomas just set up the overturning of Roe v. Wade?

Published

on

Did Clarence Thomas just set up the overturn of Roe v Wade

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levels plays into abortion decisions, and at what stage an abortion becomes too barbaric is the very reason Roe v. Wade is obsolete.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.

American Conservative Movement

0

Healthcare

Any organization that spends on political campaigns should not receive taxpayer dollars

Published

on

Any organization that spends on political campaigns should not receive taxpayer dollars

Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers still receive taxpayer funds despite efforts by many states, Capitol Hill, and the Trump administration to put an end to it. The amount has been reduced, but it has not been eliminated completely. This is a travesty in light of a recent report that they are planning to spend at least $45 million to defeat President Trump and other Republicans.

Think about that. This is an abortion provider, which should already negate the forced funding by taxpayers. But even if we disregard that aspect for a moment, what can possibly be the justification for taking taxpayer funds regardless of the taxpayer’s political affiliation and give it to an organization that uses it to attack a single political party? Those who argue, “Taxpayer money isn’t used for campaigns” is being disingenuous. Setting aside specific dollars for health services relieves the ability for other money to be used for political purposes.

This is wrong, and blatantly so. If an organization wants to spend some of the money they raise on political campaigns, that’s perfectly fine. But they shouldn’t be getting taxpayer money to replace the political money they spend. This is such a common sense notion that it’s unfathomable laws don’t exist prohibiting such activities.

And yet, here we are…

Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz Will Spend $45 Million Trying to Defeat President Trump

https://www.lifenews.com/2019/10/09/planned-parenthood-abortion-biz-will-spend-45-million-trying-to-defeat-president-trump/NPR reports this will be the billion dollar abortion group’s “largest electoral effort yet.” In 2016, Planned Parenthood spent more than $30 million in a failed attempt to elect pro-abortion Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Kelley Robinson, executive director of the superPAC Planned Parenthood Votes, said the $45 million is just an initial projection, but they hope to spend even more.

She told NPR that their top priority is to defeat Trump and push the U.S. Senate into the control of pro-abortion Democrats. This would prevent pro-life lawmakers from confirming any more judges to the U.S. Supreme Court who could overturn Roe v. Wade.

“The stakes are higher than ever, and our donors and our supporters understand that very clearly,” Robinson said.

Even pro-abortion donors should be upset by this. People supporting Planned Parenthood financially do so with the understanding they are helping fund women’s healthcare. That may include abortions (though killing a human seems to be antithetical to the concept of “healthcare,” but that’s a whole different discussion), and that’s understood by those who contribute. But to have those funds redirected to the tune of $45 million is an insult to those donating. If they wanted to donate to political campaigns or PACs, they would have done so.

It’s bad enough that many taxpayers are forced to pay for “healthcare” provided by Planned Parenthood. To force Republicans to pay taxes that are then used to attack their own candidates adds insult to injury.

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.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Healthcare

Supreme Court agrees to decide Louisiana abortion case

Published

on

Supreme Court agrees to decide Louisiana abortion case

The Supreme Court has decided to take up the case against the Louisiana abortion law that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. This case is very similar to a case from 2016 when the Supreme Court had a swing vote in Anthony Kennedy that helped rule it unconstitutional. With Brett Kavanaugh replacing him, some are expecting the outcome to be different.

We are using the CBS video on this one so conservatives have an understanding of the talking points being used against the law. It’s being framed as an attack on “abortion care” because it would reduce the number of allowable clinics in the state to one. Those who oppose the law note the statistics showing low-income and minority women are disproportionately affected by this law.

There are some conservatives who are displeased that this is the case the Supreme Court is taking up first regarding abortion with its new originalist majority. It’s a case that is nuanced rather than being an outright attempt at banning abortion and will have little effect on Roe v. Wade. But it’s actually the right case to take up now as a litmus test for the court as both Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh have expressed views in defense of abortion in the past.

Roberts has established himself as the de facto swing vote, a role he cherishes and one that essentially pits four left-leaning Justices versus four right-leaning Justices. Being in the middle gives Roberts an extreme level of power over the laws of the land.

This case is a step in the right direction against abortion if the Supreme Court rules in its favor. It’s not the “Roe v. Wade” killer that many conservatives seek, but it’s a perfect test to see if the court makeup is suitable to stop abortion in America.

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.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Gov. Greg Abbott issues ultimatum to Austin Mayor: Clean up the city by Nov. 1 or the state will intervene

Published

on

Gov Greg Abbott issues ultimatum to Austin Mayor Clean up the city by Nov 1 or the state will interv

There’s a huge difference in the way California Governor Gavin Newsom and Texas Governor Greg Abbott handle cities in their states with rampant homelessness and dangerous conditions. Newsom defends cities like San Francisco (where he was once mayor) and tells everyone there’s nothing to worry about. Abbott issues ultimatums, as he did today to Austin’s Mayor, saying the streets need to be cleaned up and homelessness addressed before November 1st or the state will be forced to intervene.

The letter, which Abbot sent to Austin Mayor Steve Adler today, details the problems the progressive city is facing, problems similar to those documented in places like San Francisco and Seattle. These problems include businesses having difficulty keeping their sidewalks clean, homeowners fearful of property crime, rampant drug abuse, and literal human feces lining the streets.

These are health and crime issues American citizens are forced to face because the Democrats in their cities’ governments are unwilling to address the issues. Despite high taxes bringing in plenty of money, the tax dollars are wasted on a progressive agenda that does not benefit the people and in many ways enables the problems to flourish.

Austin is one of the most progressive cities in the nation, boasting about its leftist politics from within the red state of Texas. But as problems mount, the image of the city has been deteriorating as fast as conditions in which the people are forced to live. Abbott is right to make the ultimatum. He doesn’t want to have to do it for them, but if the Democrats are unwilling to address their own problems, it’s up to the state to take action.

When a city is run as poorly as Austin, the state must reluctantly take responsibility for the safety of the people within it. Such things should not be, but as progressives continue to pretend these problems don’t exist, someone has to fix them.

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.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending