Op-ed:

Abortion...Too Far to the Right is Also Wrong

By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on American Political Radio

 

"I am strongly Pro-Life, with the three exceptions - Rape, Incest and protecting the Life of the mother - the same position taken by Ronald Reagan."

- President Donald Trump's tweet after Alabama passed the most restrictive abortion law in the the country

Recently I wrote an article regarding abortion titled, A Heartbeat and a Ruling...Planned Parenthood Ain't Happy at All...and this article followed two previous abortion articles I'd written, Remove Northam...But Not For A 35-Year Old Photo and New York's Descent Into Hell. These three articles addressed not only abortion in general but reiterated my support of what's called the “Heartbeat Law”...in fact I've been saying such a law was needed in all 50 states for well over a decade. And while some on the left claim this law was solely “designed” to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to overturn “Roe v. Wade” nothing could be further from the truth as precedents regarding abortion has already been set, and the newly seated conservative justices have stated they will not overturn precedents.

So why then am I writing yet another article on abortion when, as stated, I support the “Heartbeat Law” as well as supporting the justices alluding that they will not overturn “Roe v. Wade”...because the “Heartbeat Law” as written in certain states...Alabama (who effectively banned abortion altogether), Georgia, Ohio, and Missouri for example...I believe...have crossed a Constitutional as well as a morally wrong line in denying a woman an abortion in the case of rape or incest.

How so...rape and incest are violent crimes perpetrated against innocent women, and by denying these women the right to an abortion even after a heartbeat is detected actually transfers a modicum of guilt and shame onto the already traumatized victim. And while some will say that the victim of rape or incest should have immediately reported it to the police, and where in turn the “morning after” pill could be given to prevent such a pregnancy from ever taking hold, what these folks forget is that many in today's society still think both acts are somehow the fault of the woman...the victim...which most assuredly it is not...and thus they must live with the consequences...live with the consequences even in cases of gang rape.

And these judgmental sorts also forget that many times the trauma of either such act is so all-consuming that the victim either fears her rapist returning to rape her yet again or has been so mentally violated as well as being physically violated that she tries to put such happenings out of her mind in the hopes that by not thinking about it, it never happened... that is until she can no longer physically deny the truth. And more times than not that truth happens well past the six week time frame for an abortion in those above mentioned states. Also, not to be forgotten is that to carry such a violently ill-conceived child to birth is a constant reminder for these women...these victims...that their perpetrator's crime...even if they do end up in jail...sees in such children a living testament to the wrong done to them from which they can never be allowed to escape or heal.

And something else being overlooked is that many times victims of rape and incest are but children themselves... children now being forced under certain states version of the “Heartbeat Law” to carry to term and give birth to a child not only conceived in violence, but a child who will be but a few years younger than their already extremely young selves. 

Simply, children having children never works out well for any parties involved.

So while legislators and governors in some “red states” are working to pass strong anti-abortion laws similar to that of Alabama...laws that will not only become “Heartbeat Laws” but laws they mistakenly believe will aid in the overturning of “Roe vs Wade"...what seems to be left out of the political discourse is that Alabama's new law shows no compassion whatsoever for those pregnant through the violent and criminal acts of rape or incest. How so...Alabama's version of the "Heartbeat Law" law allows abortion only if the mother's life is in jeopardy...period. And with no exceptions for rape and incest Alabama has now stated, as per the provisions of its law, that any doctor performing an abortion on someone pregnant for more than six weeks is guilty of a "Class A" felony which carries a minimum sentence of 10 years and a maximum sentence of up to 99 years in prison no matter the circumstances of how said woman became pregnant.

Draconian mindset of the very worse kind...Alabama should be ashamed of itself for even its own citizens say their lawmakers have gone too far. In fact, according to a late 2018 statewide poll, only 31% of Alabama residents were in favor of an abortion ban that lacks a rape and incest exemption, meaning 69% wanted said exemption put into any abortion law that Alabama was to pass...and as we know they did not.

So with Missouri now becoming the eighth state to enact a “Heartbeat Law” this year alone, some other states are seeing the abortion timetable quite differently with Utah and Arkansas voting to limit abortion to the middle of the second trimester, while most other states are continuing to follow the standard set by the Supreme Court’s “Roe v. Wade” 1973 decision...a 7-2 decision stating that a woman's right to choose an abortion was protected by the privacy rights guaranteed by the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, thus allowing abortion in other circumstances besides just the life of the mother.

But on the flip side of the “Heartbeat Law” there's the “blue states” who are going as far to the left as some conservative states are going to the right with New York...the east coast's very own Sodom and Gomorrah of sorts...passing just this past January a measure that guarantees in its state a woman's so-called “fundamental right” to an abortion at anytime during her pregnancy and for nearly any reason. Yet a February 2019 Rasmussen poll found that only 21% of New York voters support the “fundamental right” nonsense with 66% of voters opposing the law, including 44% who otherwise identify as “pro-choice.” Sadly, in New York it now seems that the minority rules what with butcher knives, suction vacuums, and infanticide being New York's new norm.

And so the abortion divide continues on with two key questions remaining due to a time differential existing between states regarding up until when a pregnancy can be terminated...with the first question being what exactly constitutes the basis for the six week abortion cut-off date?” And the second question...what of those states whose legislators truly believe that life begins at conception...how do they justify their allowing abortion as per the time limit set by the "Heartbeat Law"?

The answer to the first question is that for states like Alabama...who just happens to call their version of the “Heartbeat Law” the "Human Life Protection Act"...it's the Biblical argument that life begins at conception and that the Ten Commandments dictates “thou shalt not kill.” This reasoning assures...via their newly passed law...that no abortion, except to save the life of the mother, would take place in their state as most women don't even know they're pregnant until after the now six week cut-off date...and that includes the victims of rape or incest no matter they be an adult or a child.

Now comes the tricky part as the answer to the second question must answered with yet another question. And here is also where religious dogma must be separated from the tangible truths of both scientific and medical fact as well as from the legalities regarding what is and is not legally deemed murder. So while Alabama and the other states now following their lead will not allow abortion past six weeks gestational time except for the life of the mother, what about states whose lawmakers do see a fetus as a person from the moment of conception and yet still allow abortion up to the sixth week of pregnancy no matter how the child was conceived...seems those states want it both ways as in they can legally kill and get away with it up until to a certain point in time but not thereafter.

Enter now the most true of scientific facts regarding human life...without a beating heart a human being is simply not “alive” for without a beating heart we simply cannot live let alone survive outside the host's body...as in the mother. However, once the heart of that which will sustain a baby throughout its life actually starts to beat... which is usually between days 18 to 21 after conception and becomes detectable by six-weeks gestation...we are now dealing with a human being no longer just a “clump of cells” as some pro-abortion sorts call what will in nine months time become a living breathing baby.

And as previously stated with many women not knowing they're pregnant that early on...especially child victims of rape or incest...most do know by the time they've missed a period or two at which point a heartbeat is well established and would thus prevent them from having an abortion in those states with a “Heartbeat Law"...states that by using their Constitutionally given right of authority have now narrowed down and restricted "Roe v. Wade" to the nth degree while not actually overturning it. And they're doing so via what many perceive as a cold-hearted and unreasonable abortion cut-off date.

But is this really fair to rape and incest victims...I think not...and not only for what I stated earlier regarding guilt being shifted onto the victim, but because now the religious beliefs of governors signing said law and legislators constructing said law sees them basically turning their backs on not just what the majority of their state's citizenry want, but also on what has always been our country's accepted tenet of separation of church and state.

A true conundrum indeed.

So while abortion still remains legal in all 50 states, we'll continue seeing mostly “red states” passing some of the most restrictive abortion legislation in decades all in the hope of setting up court battles that could, in the end, redefine abortion access in the United States. And while those states will see their cases being legally challenged as well as being tied up in the courts for years, there is always this question, did those states with a "Heartbeat Law" actually have the authority to implement such a law? State authority is one thing, but so is the fact that even if such cases reach the High Court the justices could refuse to hear said cases sending them back to the very states they originated from. Or the justices could start chipping away at Roe v. Wade on their own while not overturning it outright, thus keeping all-important precedents in place.

And so the abortion debate is far from over while always being ignored is the fact that contraception "before" is the answer to unwanted pregnancy instead of abortion being used as an "after" form of birth control.

But no matter which side of the abortion debate you're on...and know abortion is not a cut and dry issue as some on the far right and the far left make it out to be...my personal pro-life belief is that abortion must always be an option in cases or rape, incest, the baby being so medically compromised it cannot survive outside the womb, and if the mother's life is in jeopardy. And while I might not agree with you my reader's views regarding abortion I still respect that we are free to agree to disagree and do so without contempt.

Copyright @ 2019 Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / All Rights Reserved.

****************************************************************************
For more political commentary please visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner Craig Andresen's blog The National Patriot to read his latest article, Why Lie About Blind Octopi?

*******************************************************************************************************
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!

Friday, May 24th, from 7 to 9pm EST on American Political Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss 'Abortion...Too Far to the Right is Also Wrong'; Why Lie About Blind Octopi?'; and important news of the day.

Hope you can tune in at: http://listen.samcloud.com/w/73891/American-Political-Radio#history...or on Tune-In at: https://tunein.com/radio/American-Political-Radio-s273246/

Op-ed:

Shifting the Supreme Court Decidedly to the Right
By: Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / Right Side Patriots on American Political

“He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court...”
- Article II Sec.2 of the U.S. Constitution

Last Monday night President Donald Trump nominated “originalist” Brett Michael Kavanaugh to fill the seat on the Supreme Court after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement after having served 30 years on the bench.

Now having the chance to shift the High Court decidedly to the right for many generations to come no matter which political party holds the presidency in the intervening years, it's important to remember that it is the Senate alone who will approve or disapprove Trump's newest nominee. And while our side was able to get Neil Gorsuch approved thanks to some crossover Democrats, the question is can we do it again what with undeniable partisan politics seeming to have overtaken not only common sense but moral sense and decency as well.

And with moral sense and decency surely not being the calling the card of the left, it really came as no surprise when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's top deputy, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, said on 'Meet the Press' the weekend before President Trump even announced his nominee that Senate Democrats need to put “party” over their constitutes wishes when the vote for whomever is taken. In other words, Durban said Democrats should prioritize partisan opposition over their own re-election considerations. And this was immediately followed up with House Minority Leader Nancy Polosi sending out a fundraising letter saying she will “avenge” Barack Obama by opposing “Mr. Trump’s” then unannounced nominee “if it’s the last thing I do.”

                                                                                                                                                 Avenge Obama for what...he served two terms as president per the time limits set by the Constitution... he nominated and got his people appointed to the Supreme Court...so what is she really avenging but Hillary Clinton's loss thus proving herself to be but an aged snowflake still in need of a therapy puppy and bubbles...albeit this aged snowflake is an elected official of the most politically dangerous kind because her very words convey as truth what some of us have suspected all along...that Hillary Clinton was indeed to be Barack Hussein Obama's third term in office.

And with that third term surely would have come even more activist judges appointed to both the lower and the higher courts...hard to the left activist judges who would relish in legislating from the bench and who slowly but surely would be working hard to remove the 'as-written' Constitution...the very law of our land...by changing and amending it to such an extreme degree that it would have absolutely no relevancy at all in their eventually legislated socialist utopia.

No longer relevant is truly what the Democrats want the Constitution to be for the simple fact is that with the decades long liberal leaning court now shifting hard to the right the Democrats simply cannot digest let alone accept both the economic and the political shocks they on the left received with the election of Donald J. Trump as America's 45th president.

So with the wise old adage that “elections do have consequences” not being the adage the Democrats wanted to hear but instead being the reality they must now face, the age of liberalism on the Supreme Court has now come to a rightful end for it's liberalism that is America's greatest enemy from within...with said liberalism having been adjudicated from the bench.

And while the Supreme Count's job is solely to interpret the law as laid down in the Constitution, unfortunately time itself has shown that what a justice holds as his or her personal ideology and politics does more times than not sway said justice's vote. And in today's political climate of the left hating any and everything Donald Trump, the overt political ideology and now agenda of some justices has proven to be a very dangerous thing indeed.

Take for instance the Supreme Court's recent 5-to-4 vote to uphold President Trump's temporary travel ban. In their decision the court’s five conservative justices rightfully stated that Trump's power as president to secure our country’s borders “had been delegated by Congress over decades of immigration lawmaking”...which in fact it has always been...and that said delegation was not being undermined by what was then-candidate Trump’s “incendiary statements” concerning the dangers he claimed muslims posed to our country...which was the basis for the liberal justices ruling against the travel ban.

In fact, during oral arguments before the bench, Obama appointee Justice Elena Kagan personally tired to “swing” now retiring Justice Kennedy to vote against Trump's now for the third time amended travel ban by depicting the case as a “watershed moment” in the High Court’s jurisprudence about bias by laying out the possibilities of 'what if' an overtly anti-Semitic person became president and banned all immigration from Israel. Ignoring the fact that 'what ifs' are not now nor have they ever been constitutional law...and really why pick Jews who have contributed much to the fabric of our American society when she could have picked any number of minority groups...saw Kagan in her argument trying to play what in reality was the Obama anti-Israel, anti-Jew card...perhaps even allowing a glimpse into her own possible anti-Semetic and anti-Israel bias to show through.

Talk about an activist judge of the first degree.

Thankfully though this 'what if' scenario backfired on her leaving Chief Justice John Roberts to write for the majority that President Trump had “ample statutory authority to make national security judgments in the realm of immigration.”

So one can see by Justice Kagan's actions that having activist justices sitting on the Supreme Court... activist justices who have actually broken their promise of “fidelity to the law”...affects each and every American to some degree and is more dangerous than most people think for it reeks not of what should be “judicial restraint” but of a justice's partisan desire to both strike down either an existing law or applying his or her own policy preferences to, as per legal expert Hans A. von Spakovsky,* “uphold a statute or other government action that the Constitution clearly forbids.” And this includes their writing their own political leanings into their legal decisions instead of applying the Constitution impartially according to its original meaning based upon its “plain text.”

In fact, the great conservative Justice Antonin Scalia...a true "originalist"...stated time and again that “the text of the law speaks for itself”...something that all Supreme Court justices need to not only take to heart but to apply in all their decisions made.

“I do not ask about a nominee’s personal opinions...what matters is not a judge’s political views but whether they can set aside those views to do what the law and the constitution require.” So said President Trump when queried if he would ask his possible Supreme Court nominees their personal opinion on abortion.

And that brings us back to now Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, and to what the Democrats consider the most critical issue of the day...their fear that the High Court with Kavanaugh sitting on the bench would surely overturn Roe v. Wade...the highly contentious 1973 law making a women's right to choose legal...making abortion legal...in these United States.

And with Democrats ignorant to the fact that abortion is but only one of many critical issues facing our nation today, I personally do not think Roe v. Wade would be overturned.... amended maybe but not overturned...for the simple fact is that it's a settled opinion with precedent already having been set. And while a lot of conservatives would like to see it overturned based upon their religious beliefs alone, only Justice Clarence Thomas has publicly stated that he would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned.

In fact, Judge Kavanaugh, a true "originalist" in the mold of Antonin Scalia, himself has stated that he would not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade based upon precedent already being set.

But now some key Democrats are saying that while Kavanaugh was serving as a D.C. Circuit Court judge he had to honor the precedent of the Supreme Court, but that as a sitting High Court justice he actually would not have to. However, during his 2006 confirmation hearing to said Circuit Court, Kavanough clearly stated that, “if confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully,” and no words that he has spoken or written concerning Roe v. Wade since then has proved otherwise making the Democrats fear of his flipping nothing but a Justice Kagan previously stated 'what if' scenario with 'what ifs' being mere conjecture not fact.

And besides going against widespread public opinion about abortion is not something that any sitting justice is likely to do...and you can see where Americans stand by the numbers regarding abortion in my recent article On Abortion...because sitting justices truly are leery to overturn settled precedent and disrupting public expectations especially when doing so might imperil the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

So what do Democrats fear most regarding a Kavanaugh appointment besides his possibly changing his stance on Roe v. Wade...his past record voting record, his possible future voting record, and especially his opinions written coming back to haunt them.

Remember, while on the appeals court Kavanaugh voted to strike down environmental regulations and said he would have overturned internet regulations issued while Barack Obama was president. Kavanaugh also dissented a ruling that let an undocumented immigrant teenager get an abortion while in federal custody. And Democrats now fear that Kavanaugh would vote to rescind the protection of pre-existing conditions under ObamaCare, which the Trump administration is no longer defending in a lawsuit launched by GOP attorneys general. And they especially fear Kavanaugh’s past opinions on whether a sitting president can be indicted in a criminal investigation and how that would impact Mueller’s ongoing Trump/Russia collusion what amounts to a 'witch hunt' investigation. Translation: Kavanaugh might vote to throw Mueller's entire investigation out if it ever reached the Supreme Court.

“If confirmed by the Senate, I will keep an open mind in every case,” were Judge Brett Kavanaugh's words last Monday night adding that he would follow the Constitutional rule of law “and precedent.”

So where do we stand right now as we anxiously await the nomination hearings...Democrats will surely try to put Kavanaugh, a supporter of broad presidential powers, on the spot regarding how he would vote on upcoming future cases like of course Roe v. Wade, the always hovering ObamaCare, and would he side with what the Democrats call corporate interests against the working people. And we also need to see how three Democratic Senators... Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota...all of whom voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch and who are all running in difficult reelection campaigns in red states...will vote.

And with Schumer’s goal being to keep his party in partisan lock-step line it surely will be fun to watch the Democrats squirm as the High Court shifts decidedly to the right for decades to come for Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed when all is said and done leaving the Democrats to cry that their dream of a legislated from the bench socialist utopia is forever relegated to the trash heap where it always belonged.
__________________________________
* Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

Copyright @ 2018 Diane Sori / The Patriot Factor / All Rights Reserved.

************************************************************************
For more political commentary please visit my RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS partner Craig Andresen's blog The National Patriot to read his latest article Kavanaugh...Because Elections Have Consequences.

*******************************************************************************************************

RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE!

Today, Tuesday, July 17th from 7 to 9pm EST on American Political Radio, RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Craig Andresen and Diane Sori discuss everything SCOTUS... 'Shifting the Supreme Court Decidedly to the Right'; Kavanaugh...Because Elections Have Consequences'; and important news of the day.

Hope you can tune in at: http://listen.samcloud.com/w/73891/American-Political-Radio#history