The SCOTUS Leak and Reaction: Progressive Propaganda and Wild-Eyed Protests

   As a man, I've often been told by friends of both sexes that I shouldn't comment on abortion, or the politics surrounding it. I've generally taken that advice here on LEAVWORLD, except for some posts I shared from Stop The ACLU, many years ago. However, in these new, progressive days of "men" giving birth, I think it's okay for me to comment on  the subject. That's a jab at progressives, who reject gender, and prefer to call women "birthing people."

   If the SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade, as a leaked document suggests, millions of women in blue states will have exactly the same access to abortion as they did the day before. It looks as if the media, and many Democrats are telling people that the if the SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade, there will be a federal ban on abortion. That is disinformation, commonly known as a lie, or BS.

   However, millions of women in Red states will be prohibited from aborting their children, because of laws that their state has either previously passed, that were invalidated by Roe, or laws that are written go into effect if Roe is overturned. In many of these states, abortion services are already so restricted that it may not have much of an impact.

   One of the least compelling arguments against overturning Roe is that it is anti-democratic, that a majority of nine people can decide whether a woman has a choice to abort a child, across the nation. That is not what the court is ruling on. The court's function is to adjudicate the constitutionality of laws passed by the federal government, and states. The Constitution guarantees the rights of the people, and the states, and restricts the federal government from infringing on those. There is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, and Roe was decided using language suggesting a "penumbra" from other rights listed in the Constitution. This is something that even the liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg saw as weak legal justification. In Roe, a majority of nine people decided that aborting a child was legal, without any democratic vote or public consensus. The only federal laws restricting abortion since Roe have been the "partial-birth" abortion ban, and the Hyde Amendment, which dictates that the federal government will not fund abortions. Both of those have been de facto negated by the loopholes of the life or health of the mother, because every pregnancy involves some risk to the health of the mother.

   The many aspects of various state laws are too numerous to analyze in this post, but suffice to say that without Roe, the politics of abortion rights will become a much larger issue at the state level. It may take some time, because Roe insulated politicians from dealing with the real issue of when a woman's right to abort is superseded by a child's right to live. If Roe is overturned, every state will have to confront this issue. States that ban abortion may see women leaving, and other economic downsides. Planned Parenthood, and other pro-abortion groups may continue to get a surge in donations, and "abortion travel" to Blue states may become a new business model. NYS Gov. Hochul has already written an op-ed in the WSJ telling companies that they should move to NY, to ensure abortion rights for their employees (She didn't mention all of the negatives, like taxes and crime).

   That concludes my analysis of the actual consequences of the possible SCOTUS decision overturning Roe v. Wade. That's not even half of the current story, as anyone who watches the news knows. The fact that a SCOTUS draft opinion was leaked, in its over 100 page entirety, to a news organization is beyond unprecedented. It means that, for the first time in the history of our nation, someone working at the highest court in our nation thought that they could influence the judicial process and decision by unleashing political pressure, in the form of public protests. What they unleashed has gone much further.

   The SCOTUS is a rare institution, with lifetime appointments to insulate the Justices from political pressure. In its recent history that I have witnessed, more Republican appointed Justices have sided with Democrat appointed ones in majority opinions, as when Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberals to uphold Obamacare, than vice versa. I don't recall any Republicans or conservatives protesting at his home, even though they were all outraged by his decision. Since the leak of the alleged Alito opinion, a pro-abortion group published the home addresses of the conservative SCOTUS Justices. 

   What happened next was also unprecedented. Crowds of pro-abortion protesters showed up at these Justices homes, without any police response, even though it apparently is illegal. Further, the (former) White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki condoned it. She said that the protests "have been peaceful to date," which sounds an awful lot like she was trying to cover her ass in case of future violence. This is no joke, and it follows Pres. Biden's weak response to Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema being followed and videoed in a women's bathroom, when she was opposing his Build Back Better bill. It seems as if while the Democrats accuse Republicans and their SCOTUS appointees of depriving women of rights, and breaking civil norms, they are actually doing it. Is this "the new normal," for Democrats?

   Sen. Schumer made unprecedented and direct threats to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanagh, on the steps of the SCOTUS, before walking them back. Can he be charged, impeached, or otherwise removed from office for his actions? His words were a much more direct call to insurrection than anything Pres. Trump said on Jan. 6th. Now that people are following Sen. Schumer's orders, is he culpable for inciting them? Trying to intimidate the SCOTUS to changing a potential ruling, after an unprecedented "leak" is on par with what Pres. Trump's fanatics did. Using the Democrats' own logic, Sen. Schumer has to be held accountable, because he directly mentioned the Justices that are under siege now. The correct answer is no, he can't be charged or impeached, because the Democrats' logic is not the legal standard. 

   Since that wasn't a crime, then I can warn Sen. Schumer that he has sown the wind, and now will reap the whirlwind, without being accused of being a domestic terrorist. I can say with confidence that his days as Senate Majority Leader are coming to an abrupt end, in the new year. I can't believe that he escaped the fate of all of his corrupt NY comrades: Spitzer, Hevesi, Cuomo, Weiner, Patterson, Bruno, Skelos, Silver, and the list goes on... I can't wait to see him get his political comeuppance. Unfortunately, he won't be held politically accountable, unless this year's political "red wave" gets much bigger in NYS. I don't recognize a single name on the list of GOP primary challengers for his seat.

   Beside the Democrat politicians, the grass root level progs are now taking protesting to a new, and absurd level. Progressive Democrats have decided to protest at Christian church services. This one really ticks me off, because progressives supposedly believe in the separation of church and state. If I understand their thinking (I do), they think all conservatives and Republicans DON'T separate church from state. They think that all Republican policies are dictated from some "fundamentalist Christian" leader, who they can't identify. The current Catholic Pope is a leftist, so it can't be him. It really doesn't matter, because being a Christian is enough to make you a target. Your religious beliefs go against what the government permits, so you have to be ostracized. They can't even imagine that there are atheist Republicans, who not only respect the freedom of religious worship, but may oppose abortion for secular reasons.

   Here's where it gets interesting. I wonder if any of these anti-abortion protesters would disrupt a Muslim prayer session on a Friday, to try changing people's minds about abortion. Most Muslim majority nations ban abortion, with a few exceptions. Somehow, I don't think that progressive Democrats would denounce Islam in the same way they denounce Christianity for what amounts to the same position on abortion. The fact is that religious beliefs are protected in the Constitution, and whether they influence government policy is immaterial. Blaming religion for laws one disagrees with is both misguided and unamerican, which may be why progressives enjoy doing it.

   In summation, the SCOTUS is not "banning abortion" if Roe is overturned. It is allowing the states to decide their own abortion laws, democratically. Some states will restrict or ban abortion, and others will not only allow it, but subsidize it with tax money for women that can't afford it. While it is a seismic political shift from what has been, it is exactly the opposite of what most protesters have been claiming. This is not "The Handmaids Tale," by a long shot. That claim is typical of today's progressive propagandists, on every issue. I believe that in the long term, allowing the states to decide will change the nature of the abortion debate. I can't imagine it will stop being a national issue overnight, but at least the SCOTUS can say that the federal government has no authority over it.