Fierce Patriots

Conservative Political News

  • Subscribe

Abortion

Warren: SCOTUS 'an Extremist' Court Willing to 'Take a Shot at Roe v. Wade'

by Leave a Comment

This week on MSNBC’s “The Sunday Show,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) slammed the U.S. Supreme Court as an “extremist court” that was “out of step with the American people.”

Host Jonathan Capehart aired a clip of a Democratic Texas state representative lamenting that the Supreme Court was acting like abortion was “an issue that we need to vacillate over.”

Warren agreed and argued that “70% of Americans” want Roe v. Wade to “remain the law of the land.”

“Look, the court has signaled 40 different ways that it is an extremist court, out of step with the American people, and that it’s willing to line up and take a shot at Roe v. Wade,” Warren outlined. “Now, whether they’ll get rid of it entirely or just let the states continue to chip at it, come on. They’ve given us every possible signal. But for me, what that means is it’s time for Congress to step up.”

She continued, “The American people strongly support Roe v. Wade. About 70% of Americans say they want that to remain the law of the land. We don’t need the Supreme Court to do that. The United States Congress could do that. When 70% of the people support something, by golly, I think we ought to get out there and get it done.”

Follow Trent Baker on Twitter @MagnifiTrent

Pro-Life Democrat: ‘I Grieve for the Disastrously Wrong Turn of My Party’

by Leave a Comment

The former Associate Director of the U.S. Bishops’ Pro-Life Office, a self-described “pro-life Democrat,” said Saturday he grieves “for the disastrously wrong turn of my party.”

Richard M. Doerflinger, who worked for the Catholic bishops’ conference for 36 years, said that the Democrats’ stand on human life is the most obvious but not the only issue in which the party has gone radically wrong.

“The growing hostility of many Democratic leaders to religious freedom and rights of conscience is equally appalling,” Doerflinger told Crux, an online Catholic news outlet.

The “courageous few who remain active in politics as pro-life Democrats” are “more likely to be found at the state and local than at the national level,” Doerflinger noted. “But it’s been a long time since I saw a national Democratic ticket I would feel happy to vote for.”

“A landmark moment for the debate whether abortion is protected by the Constitution, a divisive issue in itself, is happening at a time when our politics is more polarized and divisive than I have ever seen,” Doerflinger said.

“If Roe v. Wade is reversed, abortion will not end but become an issue of political debate in every state and locality as well as in Congress,” he noted.

He went on to note that the pro-abortion movement has become more and more radicalized, abandoning “its old emphasis on ‘freedom of choice’ and now fixates on maximum ‘access’ to abortion – which means an insistence on public funding, a campaign against conscience rights for health care professionals, and even an attack on clinic regulations trying to protect the life and health of women.”

“The movement’s flagship legislation, the ‘Women’s Health Protection Act,’ is promoted as ‘codifying Roe’ but would attack hundreds of modest laws that are valid under Roe,” he added.

“This new extremism may attract public opinion or, as I hope, it may backfire and turn off many Americans, just as the movement’s fervent defense of the grotesque partial-birth abortion procedure did over a decade ago. It’s too soon to tell,” he said.

Terry McAuliffe Denies Existence of Pro-Life Women CEOs in America

by Leave a Comment

Former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) told the Virginia Chamber of Commerce Wednesday “there’s not a woman CEO in America that wants to go to a state where someone’s banning abortions.”

Abortion has become a central issue in the tight gubernatorial race between McAuliffe and Republican candidate Glenn Youngkin.

McAuliffe boasted to the Chamber of Commerce about his entirely pro-abortion stand as governor, one he associated with the position of being pro-women and “welcoming”:

I also made sure that Virginia was an open and welcoming state. We had some, as you all know, the most anti-women, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-environment legislation in America. I ended all that nonsense. I kept all 16 women’s clinics open. They would not be open today had I not got elected.

In July, McAuliffe touted his endorsements by Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia and NARAL.

“I’ve always been a brick wall against attacks on reproductive health care and that won’t stop now,” he vowed on Twitter. “As Governor, I’ll fight to enshrine the right to choose into the Virginia constitution.”

Planned Parenthood Action Fund donated $250,000 to McAuliffe’s campaign just between August 31 and September 28.

CNBC reported Friday abortion and education have taken the spotlight in the Virginia gubernatorial race, with the candidates’ most expensive ads focused on both of these issues.

According to the report:

Three of McAuliffe’s most expensive ads, which cost from $510,000 to $922,000 to produce and run, have attacked Youngkin for his abortion stance. They are among the former governor’s most aired ads on broadcast or cable television, with each airing over 1,100 times, according to AdImpact data.

During this week’s 8News/Urban One Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate Forum, McAuliffe said abortion is the most important issue in the governor’s race, and repeated he would enshrine Roe V. Wade into Virginia’s constitution.

When asked about what changes he might make to the current abortion laws in Virginia, McAuliffe responded, “I’m glad you asked this … because there probably is not a more important question to ask right now.”

Monmouth University Polling Institute has McAuliffe and Youngkin “locked in a close battle” in the governor’s race, with Youngkin making the most recent gains.

According to Wednesday’s polling report:

Youngkin (46%) and McAuliffe (46%) hold identical levels of support among all registered voters. This marks a shift from prior Monmouth polls where the Democrat held a 5-point lead (48% to 43% in September and 47% to 42% in August). A range of probabilistic likely electorate models* shows a potential outcome – if the election was held today – of anywhere from a 3-point lead for McAuliffe (48% to 45%) to a 3-point lead for Youngkin (48% to 45%). This is the first time the Republican has held a lead in Monmouth polls this cycle.

Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth Polling Institute, especially noted that suburban women in Virginia are not registering as enthusiastic for Democrats as they have in the past.

“Suburban women, especially in Northern Virginia, have been crucial to the sizable victories Democrats have enjoyed in the commonwealth since 2017,” he said.

“However, their support is not registering at the same level this time around,” he observed. “This is due partly to a shift in key issues important to these voters and partly to dampened enthusiasm among the party faithful.”

BREAKING: Supreme Court Sets November 1 Oral Argument on Texas Abortion Case

by Leave a Comment

Abortion supporters and pro-life advocates demonstrate on the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, Washington, D.C., January 24, 2011. (Jim Young/Reuters)

The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear a major challenge to Roe v. Wade, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Mississippi case that will be argued December 1. It has already once turned away a request to rule immediately on S.B. 8, the Texas abortion law that allows private individuals to file “private attorney general” civil damages lawsuits rather than enforce its abortion restrictions through government action. The latter decision was based largely on the Court’s skepticism of the procedural hurdles to the lawsuit looking to enjoin the Texas law.

Since then, the Justice Department under Merrick Garland has filed its own lawsuit to stop the Texas law. That lawsuit, as I have discussed, has its own problems, but the Court today ordered an aggressive briefing schedule and an emergency argument on November 1. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the decision not to enjoin the law in the interim.

There are three things going on here. One, the justices would clearly prefer to hear the Dobbs case in an orderly and deliberative fashion and grapple with the momentous decision whether to overturn, entrench, or rewrite and limit Roe in the spring. But events keep forcing them to take up the Texas case first. I will still be surprised if the Court decides the Texas case in any way that shows its cards on the outcome of Dobbs, but if you are worried that Chief Justice John Roberts and others, especially Justice Brett Kavanaugh, may lack the courage to overturn Roe, the worst-case scenario is that they get cold feet in the Texas case, presented as it is under more adverse circumstances.

Two, the asymmetry of how the Court handles emergency stay requests is on full display. Justice Sotomayor argues that “every day that S. B. 8 remains in effect is a day in which such tactics are rewarded. And every day the scheme succeeds increases the likelihood that it will be adapted to attack other federal constitutional rights.” But it has often been the case in, say, gun-rights cases that laws violating constitutional rights get left in place until the Court hears them. Abortion cases have regularly been given special treatment, which is why you hear so much howling when the Court leaves a law on the books for just a few weeks.

Three, the justices may be sensitive to criticisms of emergency decisions made without full briefing and argument — the so-called shadow docket. It is inevitably the case that the Court has to act in more summary fashion when it is asked for emergency relief. And it is entirely defensible for the Court to turn away cases and requests for relief without hearing them in full; it does that every week when it denies petitions for certiorari. It is a fairer argument that the Court should not grant affirmative relief — enjoining a law more than temporarily — without a fuller hearing, especially on questions of national significance. The fact that the Court is adding this case to the argument docket plainly shows that the justices want to make a public show of giving Merrick Garland his day in court.

McAuliffe: Female CEOs Won’t Go to a State That Bans Abortion

by Leave a Comment

Terry McAuliffe participates in a campaign event at in Arlington, Virginia, July 23, 2021. (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

In remarks at the Virginia Chamber of Commerce this morning, Terry McAuliffe proclaimed to the audience that “women CEOs” won’t bring their businesses “to a state where someone is banning abortions.”

The Democratic gubernatorial candidate boasted that, in his previous turn as Virginia governor, he had kept “all 16 women’s clinics open,” referring to abortion clinics, and promised that if elected again, he will keep Virginia “open and welcoming” when it comes to abortion laws. Earlier in the campaign, McAuliffe admitted that he would sign legislation permitting abortion, essentially on demand, up until birth.

This rhetoric is little surprise from a candidate endorsed and funded by NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia — a pro-abortion group that has also called for defunding the police — and Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. According to campaign-finance records, since 2012 when he first ran for governor, McAuliffe has received more than $2 million in combined donations from various NARAL and Planned Parenthood PACs.

Needless to say, there are plenty of CEOs whose decisions about where to base a company have nothing to do with a state’s abortion laws, not to mention the countless female CEOs who would likely prefer to operate in a state with policies that protect the unborn.

McAuliffe’s remarks come just as polls show that the gubernatorial race in Virginia is still in a dead heat, with less than two weeks to go until Election Day.