Archive for roe v. wade

Life Sustaining Abortions

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , on April 20, 2020 by andelino

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, discussed abortion in times of the coronavirus pandemic during David Axelrod’s “Axe Files” podcast. Whitmer, who has drawn criticism for the coronavirus restrictions she’s implemented, noted that while Michigan has put a hold on performing all “elective” surgeries, abortions can still be performed in the state and are considered “essential.”

Abortionist Gretchen appeared on the podcast of former Obama adviser David Axelrod claiming that abortion are “life sustaining.”

“A woman’s healthcare, her whole future, her ability to decide if and when she starts a family is not an election, it is a fundamental to her life. It is life sustaining and it’s something that government should not be getting in the middle of,” Whitmer said.

Question: “Why is it that women cannot make that decision before opening up the garden for planting? Why must the decision wait until the crop starts coming in before clearing the land? 

Indeed, such “elective” procedures as hip replacements and tumor removals are mere “luxuries,” whereas the destruction of an “infant” in the uterus is a fundamental “life sustaining” necessity.

Many years ago, when “Roe v. Wade” was first being twisted into penumbras and pretzel logic a women could get an abortion, on the government dime, merely by saying “I don’t know what I’ll do with a baby! I might commit suicide!”

That was “for the life of the mother.” That was four decades ago. I am sure it is even worse now.  Thanks to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer it is now “life sustaining.”

I remember pre-Roe v. Wade in New York in the 1960s, when they had the “life of the mother” exception. Everyone knew that all it took was a claim to be pre-suicidal about a pregnancy, and a permission slip was issued for a “therapeutic” abortion in a city hospital.

The condition then was termed “Situational Anxiety.” Now “therapeutic” is too mild. It has to be “life-sustaining.” Probably a setup in case of the overturn of Roe v. Wade and a return of the “life of the mother” exception.

Life sustaining. Well that’s a new one. I assume the Governor means for the woman, the child being “sacrificed” might see it differently.

Judicial Philosophy vs. Politics

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on December 23, 2019 by andelino

Even though the President of the United States is supposed to “appoint” Supreme Court Justices based on their “judicial philosophy and not their politics”, President Bill Clinton “admitted” that he chose Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg due to her “steadfast” commitment to upholding “abortion.”

Speaking at Georgetown University Law School, the former president said that protecting “Roe v. Wade” played a significant role in his selection of “Ginsburg” to the Supreme Court.

https://abcn.ws/2PtGHRb

“There is one thing that we did discuss, and I feel I should tell you, because it will illustrate why I thought I should appoint her. Abortion was a big issue in 1992 — the right to choose, I was one of the first pro-choice Democrats to run since Roe v. Wade, who actually benefited from Roe v. Wade. Now, she didn’t have to say anything about this. She knew this perfectly well that I was under a lot of pressure to make sure I appointed someone who is Simon-pure, which I had said was important,” Clinton said, as reported by ABC News.

No president has ever “admitted” to asking a potential Supreme Court nominee on how they would “rule on an issue” like abortion. In fact, when Justice Gorsuch was asked about such a meeting during his confirmation process, he said that would have walked out the door if President Trump pressed him to “overturn” Roe v. Wade.

Former President Clinton said he “inquired” with Ginsburg about the issue of “abortion” and admitted that his pick was “clearly pro-choice” after nominating her.

“I asked her the question and she talked about it just as if it was any other issue, no effect, this is what I think, this is why I think it. And she made a heck of a case,” Clinton said.

Bill Clinton’s frank admission about how he “selected” Ginsburg suggests she may have “lied” during the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing when she said it was “inappropriate for anyone to ask how a judicial nominee would rule on a specific case.”

“It is inappropriate, in my judgment, to seek from any nominee for judicial office assurance on how that individual would rule in a future case. That judgment was shared by those involved in the process of selecting me. No such person discussed with me any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning my position on such case, issue, or question,” Ginsburg said.

Ginsburg’s “pro-abortion” record on the Supreme Court is well-documented and often goes beyond “legal” jurisprudence and into “ideological” statements about “sexism and gender politics,” such as when she accused her male peers of “sexism” in the Hobby Lobby ruling.

“Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?” Katie Couric asked Ginsburg in light of the ruling.

“I would have to say no,” she replied. “But justices continue to think and can change. I am ever hopeful that if the court has a blind spot today, its eyes will be open tomorrow.”

 More proof that “judicial philosophy and politics” go hand in hand despite what they “preach and want you to believe.”

If you wait long enough the “truth” eventually will set you free.

%d bloggers like this: