Chuck Schumer Mansplains How Women’s Right To An Abortion Hangs In The Balance

I always find it interesting how so many Democratic Party voting males push hard for abortion on demand

Chuck Schumer: Our Rights Hang in the Balance

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement has created the most important vacancy on the Supreme Court in our lifetimes. Whoever fills Justice Kennedy’s seat will join an evenly divided court with the ability to affect the laws of the United States and the rights of its citizens for generations. Enormously important issues hang in the balance: the right of workers to organize, the pernicious influence of dark money in politics, the right of Americans to marry who they love, the right to vote.

Perhaps the most consequential issues at stake in this Supreme Court vacancy are affordable health care and a woman’s freedom to make the most sensitive medical decisions about her body. The views of President Trump’s next court nominee on these issues could well determine whether the Senate approves or rejects them.

President Trump’s own words tell us that his nominee to the court will almost certainly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and eviscerate affordable access to health care for millions of Americans. President-elect Donald Trump said in November of 2016 that “I’m pro-life; the judges will be pro-life.” During the campaign, he speculated that after he appointed two or three judges to the bench, Roe v. Wade “will go back to the individual states.”

In practice, sending Roe v. Wade back to the states would claw back a constitutional freedom to abortion that all American women have had for over 40 years. There are at least 20 states poised to ban abortion immediately if the 1973 decision is overturned, and legislatures in Iowa, Mississippi and Louisiana have already passed strict anti-abortion laws that could trigger challenges to the decision.

Abortion on demand is the number one belief among Democrats. How it came about that Democrats must believe in aborting the unborn at any time with zero restrictions above anything else is incredible. Seriously, this is what Chuck and the other Dems are worried about first and foremost regarding Trump’s next SCOTUS pick: the ability of a person who got pregnant from having irresponsible, unprotected sex with a person they do not want to have a baby with at a time when they do not want to have a baby.

If you do not want a Supreme Court Justice who will overturn Roe v. Wade and undo the Affordable Care Act, tell your senators they should not vote for a candidate from Mr. Trump’s preordained list. Democrat, Republican, independent, liberal or conservative — we should all want a more representative process for choosing the next Supreme Court justice.

We have a representative process: it’s called a General Election. Trump won. He ran a better campaign. Hillary is Hillary, and did things like passing out on 9/11 and failing to campaign in needed states.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “Chuck Schumer Mansplains How Women’s Right To An Abortion Hangs In The Balance”

  1. Jeffery says:

    TEACH typed:

    it’s called a General Election. Trump won.

    With millions fewer votes than his opponent and the full support of Russia. That doesn’t give Trump carte blanche to do as he pleases. The Senate will have to approve any nominee.

    Although 53% of white women voted for Trump (to their shame), the worm may be turning, as even the undereducated Trump voters see their situation eroding each day.

    Will Trump’s misdirections (Illegals killing Americans! North Korea! Canada! Kneeling Negroes!) away from his dismal trade policies and personal scandals win the day? We’ll see.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Is that all ya got? https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • Please explain what situations are eroding for Trump voters.

    • Dana says:

      The left whined for years that Al Gore got more votes than George Bush, but none of their whining gave Mr Gore one Supreme Court pick or one policy to push or one bill to sign.

      Although 53% of white women voted for Trump (to their shame)

      Sounds like Jeffrey Jeffery is actually a Hillary Clinton bot.

      But it’s even better than that: thanks to minor party candidates, 57% of white women voted against Hillary Clinton! Come 2020, the majority of white women will vote Republican again.

  2. Jeffery says:

    Maybe Trump will nominate Rudy Giuliani for the SCOTUS. Or Michael Cohen.

  3. The Neon Madman says:

    I see the real problem as being in the situation where a single judge could have so much influence or power. I’d be much happier if the Supreme Court justices were term-limited, maybe like a 10 year term, with the openings staggered.

    And btw, maybe term limits for our congresscritters wouldn’t be such a bad thing either.

    • gitarcarver says:

      1) We already have term limits. It is called the ballot box. If you want to get rid of someone, vote them out.

      2) People always want term limits for the “other guy” but not for their representative. See: Massachusetts, Kennedy, Ted.

      3) Terms limits at the local / state level don’t work. People get elected, then termed out, then run for another public office, get termed out, run for another office (even the office to which they were elected the first time). Lather, rinse, repeat.

      There is a definite advantage to the incumbent at almost every level and that is due in part to both franking privileges and thinly disguised press conferences that are nothing more than campaign speeches.

      Level the playing field as for what candidates have to pay for and go from there.

      • bob says:

        you do not have term limits when less than 50% of voters vote. wheather it’s because there is no one worth voting for or people feel their vote won’t matter the lower the voting public votes the better for the incumbent. his people will always show up to vote. campaign laws have made it impossible for your average person to run for office. the longer a politician stays in office the less he works for his constituents, the more he works for whoever gives him the most money. the poster boy for term limits, robert byrd. while he was in the senate w. virgina got more federal highway funds than the rest of the country combined. great for his state but terrible for the rest of the country. with all that pork going to his state he would never be kicked out. the rest of the country suffers.

  4. The Neon Madman says:

    I see the real problem as being in the situation where a single judge could have so much influence or power. I’d be much neither if the Supreme Court justices were term-limited, maybe like a 10 year term, with the openings staggered.

    And btw, maybe term limits for our congresscritters wouldn’t be such a bad thing either.

  5. Jl says:

    Schumer-“ the rights of workers to organize….” No one has taken away workers rights to organize. J-“with the full support of Russia..”. Care to document with proof what that full support was?

  6. Professor Hale says:

    I couldn’t care less about abortion. But just being rational, if your Roe v Wade hangs by such a precarious thread that one supreme court justice can strike it down, then maybe it was a bad decision in the first place. Just like all the other 5-4 decisions in the SC where the Liberals carried the majority.

    If anything, I think even abortion advocates would argue it doesn’t go far enough to suit them. They are no longer interested in unrestricted right to abortion. Now they want someone else to pay for it.

    • Jeffery says:

      Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision.

      But the fact is that elections have consequences, and trump is entitled to nominate a justice.

  7. Professor Hale says:

    There is always the Obama way. The next time an abortion case comes up in the courts, the administration can simply decline to defend it. No Supreme Court needed.

  8. bob says:

    1) pro abortion says you don’t have a right to tell a woman what to do with her body.
    2) slave owner says you don’t have the right to tell him what to do with his property.
    both are wrong. It’s not the woman’s body having it’s arms ripped from it’s body. It’s not the woman’s body that’s having it’s legs ripped from it’s body. It’s not the woman who’s having it’s head split with scirrors. matter of fact the only thing happening to the woman’s body is that it lays still while her baby is being murdered by a butcher.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5873 access attempts in the last 7 days.