Leftists Will Be Leftists
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's comments on the pro-life cause and its advocates are illustrative of the left's increasing extremism, militancy and disturbingly intolerant and authoritarian mindset.
Someone asked Gillibrand if having a litmus test for judicial nominees would threaten judicial independence, as she has promised to only appoint justices who would affirm the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, which created -- out of whole cloth -- a constitutional right to abortion.
"I think there's some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable," said Gillibrand. "Imagine saying that it's OK to appoint a judge who's racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic ... asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America. ... I don't think those are political issues anymore."
"And we believe in this country in the separation of church and state, and I respect the rights of every American to hold their religious beliefs true to themselves, but our country and our Constitution has always demanded that we have a separation of church and state," she continued. "And all these efforts by President Trump and other ultra-radical conservative judges and justices to impose their faith on Americans is contrary to our Constitution, and that's what this is. And so, I believe that for all of these issues, they are not issues that there is a fair other side. There is no moral equivalency when you come to racism, and I do not believe there is a moral equivalency when it comes to changing laws that deny women reproductive freedom."
What a treasure trove of otherworldly statements! You have to wonder whether this longer-than-long-shot Democratic presidential fantasist actually believes these things or if she is just desperate to outflank her rivals to the left.
Contemplate the arrogance of asserting that society has reached moral clarity in saying that it is wrong to change laws that deny women reproductive freedom. Polls show that Americans are equally divided on the abortion question, so who does Gillibrand have in mind when she says "society"? Does she live in an impenetrable bubble, or does she have such contempt for those who disagree that she doesn't consider them valued members of society?
She seems to be saying that the pro-choice half of America has decided that the other half "is not acceptable." This inference is not a stretch, considering that leftists consider most of us "deplorables," and that they declare a consensus on other factual and moral questions to discourage further debate. They foreclose, by fiat, debate on climate change and many cultural issues. If you disagree with any of the left's politically correct pronouncements, even if they have been established for only five minutes, you are not only unquestionably wrong but also irredeemably evil. So absolute is the leftists' position on these "settled questions" that the questions can't even be considered political.
This is dangerous thinking, but it is how leftists think. They take a position, grow increasingly entrenched and then declare a societal consensus. Consensus doesn't mean that almost everyone agrees but that everyone who matters, or who is reasonable, does. This is a neat circular trick. Proclaim, for example, that the pro-life position is so manifestly wrong that anyone who disagrees -- even if dissenters equal proponents in number -- is unreasonable and immoral.
Next consider her statement that no one who "takes away basic human right of any group of people in America" should be appointed to the court. The basic human right to which she refers is a woman's "reproductive freedom." You would expect that a right that constitutes a "basic human right" would at least be clearly stated, rather than shrouded with deceitful euphemism. "Reproductive freedom" in pro-abortion parlance has nothing to do with reproduction. Abortion only occurs when reproduction has already occurred. Reproductive freedom means the right to kill an unborn baby, which is quite the antithesis of reproduction. It is destruction. More important, it ignores the basic human right to life of the unborn baby.
Gillibrand is correct about one thing. There is abundant moral clarity on the abortion issue. With certain exceptions, which are debatable, it is wrong to kill an unborn baby. But unlike the Gillibrand left, conservatives aren't likely to declare dissenters as societal outcasts or their views beyond debate.
Finally, there is the left's ongoing misinformation about the so-called separation of church and state. While the Constitution's First Amendment Establishment Clause prohibits the federal government (and state governments via the incorporation doctrine) from establishing or unduly supporting a national religion, it does not prohibit people from supporting or opposing laws consistent with their faith. I support laws against murder, theft and other things based on my Christian beliefs. Secularists support and oppose laws based on their beliefs. All groups are free to do that without violating the Establishment Clause, and if you deny them the right to advocate for or oppose laws based on their respective worldviews, then you violate their First Amendment right to free speech and possibly the right to the free exercise of religion.
It is ironic that people so confused about basic constitutional issues and fundamental moral questions presume their absolute moral superiority on such questions and declare them beyond debate. But leftists will be leftists.
Tags
Who is online
231 visitors
Townhall has become as much of a cesspool as your other favorite sources American Thinker and Conservative News.
I have to laugh at the tortured logic in this article about "consensus". We have for three years heard "conservatives" claim to have a majority for Trump when he has never come close to having a majority of Americans supporting him.
All polling shows a majority of Americans believe abortion should be legal , and has for many many years.
Abortion Poll: Majority Wants To Keep Abortion Legal, But With ... - NPR
Amen
No need to attack the source. I thought we all agreed that as long as "Media bias/fact check" had the source within the bounds of reasonable sources, (with the description included) they would be ok to use. I happen to think the "Media bias/fact check" has a leftist slant, but i'm forced to accept it. You have cited it when you wanted to dispose of "Judicial Watch", which for some insane reason is rated as over the line by "Media bias". So let's either accept every bit of the standard being used by NT or petition Perrie to change the standard.
I didnt make a comment about Media Bias Fact Check, why did you?
I'll describe XX Jefferson's deplorable sources any way I like.
The first two paragraphs of the article claim Roe v Wade decision is illegitimate, and then claims that his view has public support.
The vast number of Americans want Roe kept in place.
It's a shitty article from a shitty website.
As I pointed out with "Judicial Watch", which is out of bounds, there is no valid reason for excluding it. All JW does is utilize the Freedom of Information Act to get documents released to the public. One might want to argue that all of Judicial Watch's targets are left wing targets, but everything that JW gets published is documentary!
So, again why is JW out of bounds?
The other thing I question is the degree of the ratings themselves. The Washington Post is described as having a "left-center bias." It's only "left-center"? Give me a break!!!
The vast majority want some restrictions on abortion. Aborting up to the due date on any aged female is too extreme, even for most liberals.
Because you called "Town Hall" a cesspool along with two other publications. As long as Media Bias say's they are within bounds, they are ok.
I'll describe XX Jefferson's deplorable sources any way I like.
You keep calling them deplorable and one gets the impression that your'e trolling.
The first two paragraphs of the article claim Roe v Wade decision is illegitimate, and then claims that his view has public support.
Yup, the entire "Pro-Life" movement grew out of that outrageous decision!
The vast number of Americans want Roe kept in place.
Really? Then why weren't the people's elected officials ever allowed to vote on it?
It's a shitty article from a shitty website.
Say's you, for the third time!
That's the part John didn't mention
I think it's safe to say that JW is feared within the beltway and might just be the primary reason for Hillary's private server.
Perhaps you can point out were John suggested that Townhall be excluded?
If you can't, your comments about ratings are strawmen.
Are you under some delusion that there are no restrictions on abortions?
Why do you keep spewing crap that's been proven to you is utterly false?
Talk about "strawmen", John called Townhall a cesspool. I interpret that as a discrediting and a dismissal of the source.
Your'e the old wordsmith, you don't interpret it that way?
Why on earth not?
If the article argued that a majority wants access to abortion with some certain restrictions such as late term, the article might have a point.
Right at the start the article argues that the Roe decision was created from whole cloth, in other words it should be overturned. That ended any opportunity for the writer to talk honestly about "consensus".
That's not a valid argument in your opinion? Many legal scholars claim just that including those who are in favor of legal abortion. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized the decision!
“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.
Maybe, but it's highly unlikely.
From a scientific standpoint, you'll lose.
From a religious standpoint, you'll lose. (And can't pass laws based on religion anyway)
From a legal standpoint, you'll lose.
The only possible argument left is a "moral standpoint". And since you cannot legislate morals, you'll lose there too.
.
Add to all of that, the SCOTUS over turning it's own rulings is EXTREMELY rare.
Have you got some scientific evidence of when life begins? If that's what you are referring to, I'd like to see it.
Oh FFS, Tex, just stop with the strawman bullshit.
Your interpretation is evolving before my eyes.
So was a 'dismissal of the source' or a reason that it should be 'excluded' Vic?
Aw shucks Vic.
Which interpretation? Your first one or your second one?
I KNOW what I wrote Tex, hence my statement that your reply:
Is a strawman.
NOWHERE in either of the sentences I posted do I even hint that "the vast majority want no restrictions whatsoever on abortions" OR "that most liberals want abortion up to the due date".
So NO I WASN'T saying that and YES, arguing that I did is a strawman.
Whenever another member posts a strawman, I intent to call it out as such. In short, I won't stop.
The point is that the writer is not arguing that a consensus should be respected. He or she is arguing that Roe should be overturned. Elsewhere in the article the writer talks about the fact that there are an "equal" number of those who are pro choice or pro life. That is NOT true when you are talking about Roe v Wade. 75% of Americans support the Roe v Wade decision.
Once the writer said that Roe is not a legitimate decision he lost the ability to claim that an equal number of Americans support his position. That is simply not true.
I ASKED:
Why do you keep spewing crap that's been proven to you is utterly false?
READ MORE CAREFULLY Tex.
Obviously not since your comment is utter BS.
Your desperate need to misrepresent the content of my comments is irrational.
You are deliberately refusing to recognize the function of a question mark. Again, irrational.
Please proceed and take your supercilious comments with you.
Who are these 'we' you speak of Xx?
BTFW, I can't help but notice that you failed to express a viewpoint. Opportunity missed?
What 'strawman accusations' are those Xx? Please be specific when you 'up the anti and double down in response'.
There is no elective abortion past 24 weeks. This is known as the age of fetal viability. You have been told this numerous times by numerous people but you continue to repeat this partisan falsehood.
There is no elective abortion past 24 weeks
Not that facts matter in this debate, but that’s 100%false.
What state allows elective abortions beyond the point of fetal viability? If it were elective beyond that point of viability, a woman would not need the permission of doctors(s) to proceed.
Colorado, Oregon and others which you can look up if you'd like
Survival @ 25 weeks is about 50% and over 50% have 'moderate to severe' disabilities. Premature births [before 37 weeks] cost the US about 30 Billion every year. I can't imagine what the numbers would be if they required intensive medical intervention for all aborted fetuses and extremely premature babies.
Those are not elective abortions because they would violate the current SCOTUS standard because they require an extenuating medical circumstance after 26 weeks.
Violate the current Scouts standard
1. You fundamentally misunderstand the current SCOTUS standard. It doesn't put any requirements on states to restrict abortion.
2. I have no idea what your source is. Please point out the Colorado statute you are referencing. Guttmacher institute says it has zero restrictions.
A state cannot place undue restricts on the availability of abortion up to the point of fetal viability, which is 22-26 weeks.
This is from Guttmacher,
yes. That's what I said. you said the opposite above. Per your link:
states may prohibit abortion after fetal viability. There's no requirement that they have to prohibit any abortions, which is what you claimed the Supreme Court does.
With regards to Colorado, I assume your source is referring to what abortion providers publicly announce the age they will perform abortions up to..
Here's Findlaw's page for Colorado, which confirms Guttmacher:
"Colorado does not have any law restricting a time limit on when an abortion maybe obtained."
If you are comparing yourself to windmills, I would argue that at least windmills provide useful functions.
Emphatically.
The portion of this article displayed in the window (above) is one-sided 'noise.' It is emblematic of what busybodies do when they establish a cause and refuse to let it die once it has proven it has no basis for consuming 'oxygen' any longer. The Pro-Life Movement is a 'dead thing walking' — fall down into the grave at its feet already.
Leave girls and women, their doctors, and science to solve the problem and dilemma of reproduction. Politics makes a weak (and 'disturbed') mid-wife!