I’m pissed off.
Pardon my French, but the behavior of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on March 4th on the steps of the Supreme Court is a bridge too far in our escalating culture wars.
To recap, Sen. Schumer spoke at a pro-choice rally in front of the SCOTUS while it was deliberating the case of June Medical Services vs. Russo, a case which challenged a Louisiana law requiring abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at hospitals within a 30-mile radius.
Schumer said: “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
Schumer’s spokesperson later tried to say this wasn’t a real threat, but that is gas lighting, pure and simple. There is no other way to adjudge this statement given that the justices are not subject to removal by the electorate or any other branch of government.
But let’s back up and see what is behind this threat.
The law in question was introduced by a FEMALE DEMOCRAT in the Louisiana legislature in order to protect female patients’ health in case of a complication in an abortion procedure.
The protesters were thus voicing their opposition to a bill which would protect women, a law that was being challenged not by women or any injured parties, but by abortion providers themselves, who see the law as a threat to their ability to perform abortions with as few restrictions as possible.
Before this law, any certified MD was allowed to perform abortions, including a radiologist and an ophthalmologist, and clinics were not held to the same sanitary and care standards as normal “healthcare” clinics with ambulatory surgical services.
I put “healthcare” in quotes because, irony upon irony, the pro-choice protesters had signs and chants that insisted “Abortion is Healthcare.” If that is the case, then why would they be opposed to a law that applied the same medical standard to abortion clinics as other “healthcare” providers?
Their opposition to common sense protection for the female patients reveals the hideous evil of their thinking. These protesters would rather women be unsafe than allow a law that — in offering protection for these very vulnerable women — provides the same standard of care required for other medical services.
How “pro-woman” is that?
And their mendacity doesn’t stop there. It finds its culmination in the near-violent threats by Schumer against sitting justices, by name. It is in fact against the law to threaten violence like that on the ground of the SCOTUS. But such trifling things never seem to stop the left in their never-ending quest to impose, yes, impose their ideology on this country, at the barrel of a gun, if need be.
I know what a pro-choicer would say: you pro-lifers seek to impose your will on women by preventing them from obtaining constitutionally guaranteed reproductive healthcare. But that is merely a verbal sleight-of-hand. We seek to prevent doctors and women from killing their unborn babies. We are seeking the legal protection of the human lives in their wombs. We are protecting the most innocent of innocent human lives, ones that once outside the womb are granted full and vigorous protection by law and custom.
One side seeks to impose their will so that they can eliminate human life at will, while the other seeks to resist that imposition and protect human life in all cases.
One side has the moral high ground, and the other does not, which is why even the highest ranking Democratic politician in the country feels it is acceptable to issue a malign threat to the Court. If his argument and position were truly good and just, would such a threat be necessary?
I think not.
Peachtree City, Ga.