After the Abortion Ruling, How Will the Media Decide Who’s Morally Intolerable?

Loading

by Michael Tracey

I’ll get to the “Elephant in Room” news in a moment, but I want to arrive there by a slightly roundabout route, hopefully to elucidate some other notable developments which don’t flow directly from Samuel Alito’s jurisprudence. Earlier this month, a fleeting but funny media controversy erupted: Felicia Sonmez, the Washington Post journalist whom I’d previously identified as a pioneer in the burgeoning field of “therapeutic trauma jargon,” launched her latest flamboyant Twitter crusade. This time, the spark was a mildly amusing joke about the societal prevalence of bipolar/bisexual women, retweeted by her WaPo colleague and “good friend” Dave Weigel. Sonmez apparently found this joke so intolerable, demeaning, and endangering that she felt the need to publicly demand her WaPo supervisors take swift disciplinary action against Weigel — which they subsequently did, suspending him for a month without pay. Yet Sonmez couldn’t stop there. Instead, she stayed on the attack, launching wild Twitter broadsides against additional WaPo journalists for various ancillary reasons. This lasted for around five days, and was about to spill over into the sixth, until suddenly Sonmez herself was fired. Presumably for acting so crazy that even WaPo could no longer justify pretending she was owed eternal deference on account of being a self-described “survivor.”

 

When I first wrote about Sonmez in March 2021, I only brought her up as the embodiment of a certain kind of prototype that had become ascendant in elite media: the Harvard-grad journalist in their 30s working for one of the most influential newspapers in the world who, despite this astronomically “privileged” pedigree, devotes their time to attaining professional advancement by constantly invoking and leveraging their purported victim status. I actually exercised a fair amount of restraint in what I wrote, and could’ve been considerably harsher given other information about her background that I’d been made privy to. Nonetheless, Sonmez accused me of “silencing trauma survivors,” by which she meant herself, with “silencing” defined as writing about her in a way that didn’t piously affirm her every pretension of righteousness. (As to how I could possibly “silence” a journalist publishing articles at the Washington Post, that wasn’t exactly clarified.)

 
Point being: if I’d worked for a standard media institution in March 2021 when Sonmez made that allegation about me, I most certainly would’ve been summoned on the spot into some emergency administrative tribunal. The substantive merits or demerits of what I actually wrote would’ve been irrelevant, instantly drowned out by tidal waves of internal drama. A sizable percentage of this drama would have revolved around the inevitable second-order accusation that by “silencing” Felicia, I was by extension also “silencing” (and perhaps physically endangering) my own marginalized/traumatized colleagues — not because I said or did anything to them, or even interacted with them at all, but because my mere existence as a survivor-silencing person at their media organization did them grave harm.
 

Thankfully I was writing here on Substack at the time and not for some perpetually-in-turmoil media outfit, so none of the above actually happened. But if you have even a smidgeon of knowledge about how media organizations operate nowadays, you know it definitely would have happened.

Fast forward to 15 months later, and Sonmez was still plugging away at the Washington Post. In the interim, she had tried and failed to sue the Washington Post for discriminating against her on the basis of her purported victim status. During this period, the main focus of her journalistic output for the Washington Post appeared to be bringing the most inflammatory possible litigation against the Washington Post. Her suit got dismissed with prejudice this past March, but there she remained, still gainfully employed, and by June still invoking her court-dismissed victim status — this time to exact retribution on colleagues for such shocking conduct as re-tweeting, and then quickly un-retweeting, a mildly amusing but forgettable joke.

 

As this was happening, you could tell right away that the ground was starting to shift beneath Sonmez. Even though she managed to successfully orchestrate the suspension of Weigel, the reaction among media peers to her antics was noticeably negative, and a quick consensus emerged that it was ridiculous for the Washington Post to have punished Weigel for such a trivial non-infraction. Weigel is seen across the industry, including by me, as a generally affable and inoffensive guy. He spends a lot of time traveling around the country reporting on political events, so if you’re a journalist who’s ever covered a campaign rally or a conference, there’s a good chance you’ve met him in person and found him generally agreeable. The idea that he of all people would randomly be the target of Felicia’s ferocious ire clearly rubbed journos the wrong way, and the idea that he would then be publicly flagellated by the Washington Post at Felicia’s behest was doubly risible.

 

Whereas a year ago Felicia could expect automated hostage-style capitulation to her increasingly crazy demands, along with tributes to her personal bravery, by this month the tide seemed to be slowly turning. Colleagues who might have been previously paralyzed into “silence” started to cautiously vocalize their aggravation with Felicia, whom they probably always privately thought of as nuts. As her spasmodic attacks against fellow WaPo journalists intensified, whatever goodwill she had retained up until that point got zapped, and she was given the boot. A subtle, but nonetheless significant shift was underway in the insular world of petty media in-group dynamics; no longer could Felicia’s purported survivorship status be indefinitely leveraged to insulate her from ramifications for her insane conduct.

Read more
 

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
110 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

How many of those Pro-Abortion types donate to PETA, HSUS, Greenpeace, NRDC and EDF?

Perhaps the most pathetic aspect of the visceral response to the death of Roe v Wade is that NONE of them… not a single, solitary one… can provide the argument that SUPPORTS the Constitutionality of it, and that includes every politician and media turd.

The First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom is a constitutional basis for the right to abortion: If you’re Jewish, you have a religious duty to prioritize the life of a pregnant woman above the continuation of a pregnancy.

Rabbinic Judaism does not regard a fetus as a full human being. One is a human being—a person—only after birth, and the taking of the first breath.

Many Christians also recognize the biblical concept that a person begins at the point when the first breath is taken.

The Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade has opened the door for state governments to infringe on our First Amendment freedom of religion—even against the majority opinion of the people of those states. 60 percent of Americans believe that Roe v. Wade should not have been overturned.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

So, your argument is religion is science?

Life is life and murder is murder. You leftists won’t restrain yourselves from aborting human life up to and beyond the moment of birth, so that power must be taken away from you.

Maybe you should learn how to behave like a civilized human being.

Science isn’t protected by the First Amendment. Freedom of Religion IS. You asked for a constitutional argument. I just gave you one.

What is the constitutional basis for allowing state governments to deprive U.S. citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights?

So, your argument is religion is science?

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

The left could care less about the women and they baby. They have a satanic cult following that ascribes to sacrifice. They murder babies as an offing to their betters thinking it will ingratiate them

Most women of child-bearing years are ON the left, Bucko. (And work on your English-language syntax. You just said the opposite of what you actually meant.)

The left could care less about the women and they baby. 

3 days later: As Ohio restricts abortions, 10-year-old girl travels to Indiana for procedure

On Monday three days after the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dr. Caitlin Bernard, an Indianapolis obstetrician-gynecologist, took a call from a colleague, a child abuse doctor in Ohio.

Hours after the Supreme Court action, the Buckeye state had outlawed any abortion after six weeks. Now this doctor had a 10-year-old patient in the office who was six weeks and three days pregnant.

Could Bernard help?

Indiana lawmakers are poised to further restrict or ban abortion in mere weeks. The Indiana General Assembly will convene in a special session July 25 when it will discuss restrictions to abortion policy along with inflation relief.

Ohio abortion update:Ohio Supreme Court rejects attempt to immediately block six-week abortion ban

Abortion ban election impact:After Roe v Wade overturned, Ohio Democrats shift message to abortion, GOP to economy

But for now, the procedure still is legal in Indiana. And so the girl soon was on her way to Indiana to Bernard’s care.

Indiana abortion laws unchanged, but effect still felt across state

While Indiana law did not change last week when the Supreme Court issued its groundbreaking Dobbs decision, abortion providers here have felt an effect, experiencing a dramatic increase in the number of patients coming to their clinics from neighboring states with more restrictive policies.

Since Friday, the abortion clinics where Dr. Katie McHugh, an independent obstetrician-gynecologists works have seen “an insane amount of requests” from pregnant people in Kentucky and Ohio, where it is far more difficult to get an abortion. 

A ban on abortions after six weeks took effect on last week in Ohio. Last Friday the two abortion providers in Kentucky shut their doors after that state’s trigger law banning abortions went into effect.

Indiana soon could have similar restrictions.

That pains doctors like Bernard.

“It’s hard to imagine that in just a few short weeks we will have no ability to provide that care,” Bernard said…

It’s not at all hard to imagine. Thanks to a Supreme Court stacked with right-wing partisans and state legislatures dominated by Trumpist “republicans”, it’s already happening.

Let’s talk about Ohio, Indiana, a girl, and the Supreme Court…

Trapped in Texas under its current abortion laws, the kid probably would have died. Using sophisticated electronic instruments, at 5 1/2 to 6 weeks a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

What the f**k do you or anyone else involved give a shit if she dies? Obviously, she’s just a piece of meat to you anyway. The only important thing you see is killing the “mistake”. No wonder you leftists protect scum like Epstein, Maxwell and Weinstein.

The abortion issue doesn’t matter. It’s being stoked to create tension for the midterms.

And it’s supporting treason for Democrats to actually “stack” (Trump didn’t) the SC or even get rid of it.

Your coup is almost complete.

Also, your outlier is irrelevant.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nathan Blue

First question: what happened to the girl? Was she raped? Was this just a tryst? Who impregnated her? Have they been prosecuted?

Next, why did they wait so long? It’s not normal for 10 year olds to get pregnant; why wasn’t action taken immediately to find our if she was pregnant and end the pregnancy immediately, if that was the desire?

You Democrats have proven yourselves completely irresponsible with the power of life or death over babies in the womb. So, you must be regulated. As I’ve said, YOU brought this upon YOURSELVES. Now, in the event of sexual intercourse, women will need to test themselves and get an abortion immediately, if that is the desire. Don’t blame anyone but yourselves for dawdling around and letting time run out.

Or, travel to one of those states that celebrate barbaric human sacrifice and get the abortion.

Again, blame no one but yourselves.

The pregnant girl was only 10 years old. She should not be required to justify her need for an abortion to anybody.

Why did they wait? is an absurd question. Who would even suspect that a 10 year old child was pregnant, until it had progressed beyond the point where authoritarian yahoos deem the only remedy automatically forbidden?

Maybe we really are going to need your damn “civil war”. You seem to want it, and reason, common sense, and appeals to compassion don’t seem to be working. They don’t seem to work on a wide range of issues.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

The pregnant girl was only 10 years old. She should not be required to justify her need for an abortion to anybody.

Damn, you are one sick f**k. Do you see nothing abnormal about a 10 year old little girl getting pregnant? That goes a little beyond #BelieveHer and “privacy”, you demented idiot.

From your stupid-ass response, nothing you have read even addresses what happened to the girl other than she didn’t get her abortion in time. I pray to God the rest of your stinking, degenerate, amoral ideology is not as sick and perverted as you, whoever impregnated the girl and whoever hasn’t prosecuted whoever is responsible.

It was some 10-year-old girl’s actual REALITY–a terrible situation that became even worse because right-wing idiots in Ohio have been empowered by the Supreme Court to deprive her of any sane remedy, other than getting the hell out of their jurisdiction.

Damn, you are one sick f**k… blah blah blah.  

The real issue is why a 10 year old got pregnant.

We care about the root cause. You only care about demonic ends.

Good thing Christianity and Judaism don’t support abortion.

10 who raped that child? She isnt a legal adult until 18, privacy? so the child can continue to be molested in secret? You sir are one sick slug of a nazi scum pile.
My Grandbaby is 10 the bottom of lake Superior, deep in the National forest, he wouldnt die quickly.

To show exactly how sick the left (you) really are, the subject of the article you link is all about the lack of being able to kill an unborn human being, NOT the rape and abuse of a 10 year old child, who was responsible for such an action and how they were being held to account legally.

Why is that? Oh, it’s because being able to murder children is much more important to you on the left than protecting them.

You’re a disgusting slug, Comrade Greggie.

Actually, if you recall, the left wants to make this kind of pedophilia legal and normal. Idiot Biden’s new SCOTUS Justice fully approves.

Well, make sure to stack the court or just abolish the SC altogether like your Democrats want.

Then you can get rid of all those pesky “checks and balances” and replace heathy democracy with your forced one-party police state who will tell us what they think.

Oh, and the Court isn’t “stacked.” It was filled legally with Trump appointees.

Democrats want to “stack” it. That’s usually the last thing an illegitimate, totalitarian state does when it’s taking over.

The First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom is a constitutional basis for the right to abortion: If you’re Jewish, you have a religious duty to prioritize the life of a pregnant woman above the continuation of a pregnancy.

Rabbinic Judaism does not regard a fetus as a full human being. One is a human being—a person—only after birth, and the taking of the first breath.
Many Christians also recognize the biblical concept that a person begins at the point when the first breath is taken.

The Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade has opened the door for state governments to infringe on our First Amendment freedom of religion—even against the majority opinion of the people of those states. 60 percent of Americans believe that Roe v. Wade should not have been overturned.

How about an intelligent response? I haven’t seen one yet.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

We live in a democratic Constitutional Republic.

We don’t stir up Democrat mobs to lie and intimate folk into force illegal decrees.

We follow the Law.

The SC did that, and to oppose that is open insurrection, on your part.

If you are too stupid or too brainwashed to understand our government, that doesn’t matter.

Too many fools in this country think they have something to say, when they are just being used as pawns.

This is NOT an infringement on religious freedom, and your tired, provided response is just the new word-salad being foisted.

Just leave the country. We grow tired of your secessionist views, and your treasonous statements.

JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY DO NOT SUPPORT ABORTION. And neither do “60%” of the population.

Glad we cleared that up.

Comrade Greggie admitted once (a long time ago) that he doesn’t have any children.

I wonder if he had them ripped from their mother’s womb, piece by piece, by someone like Kermit Gosnell. Maybe that is why he is so hip on killing the unborn.

He also claimed he lives in Indiana, is around 71 or something, and was in Vietnam.

He sounds like a useless Middle School Teacher, like “michael’s” fake fed persona.

RELIGIOUS OPINIONS VARY

This jerk*ff greg finally admitted something useful, and is now a Right-winger.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nathan Blue

You’re a Catholic Nazi, right? As opposed to a modern American Catholic. No doubt you detest the Pope for being too liberal.

There is no such thing as a “Catholic Nazi.”

Please be precise with your language, and get educated on what an “American Catholic” is.

You are sadly ignorant.

Our Constitutional Republic is built on local democracy, to state, then the last and most constrained part of our government, the Federal level.

Leftists have, as most anti-religious religionists do, have made government their “god” and are foisting that on the rest of us, breaking with the Founders design for the nation and profaning the sacrifices made from the Revolutionary War up until now.

If you were a Veteran, greg, you might understand. It’s hard to explain sacrifice to people who never served.

There is no such thing as a “Catholic Nazi.”

Really? You must have slept through the history lesson that covered Nazi Germany.

Yes. There is no such thing as a “Catholic Nazi.”

The cowardice of most Germans to oppose Hitler is now rather infamous. I’m unsure why you think a picture of Catholics from the 1930s saluting suddenly conjures into existence a “Catholic Nazi” in America in 2022.

Like you being a mask Nazi and an experimental vaxx nazi? Didnt bother you when 5 Governors murdered elderly by putting Covid infected people into the old folks homes, as least NY included body bags, how thoughtful. You have given up your bodily autonomy argument. No way can they give people medicines that have been proven safe no right to try, no early treatment. We wont be as cruel we know there are many effective pevention methods. Best one dont put it in there, have some self restraint fella, or pay child support.

greg is the kind of cowardly cuck this nation needs less of.

The Trans perversion is primarily weak men acting like cuttlefish.

Suddenly the left are science deniers, that a child isnt a child because of its location. Ive carried children and dont need a scientist to tell me the baby using my ribcage as a jungle gym was very much alive and kicking. When the baby wanted a chocolate fill chocolate iced chocolate donut from the bakery, I just holler as his daddy went out the door dont forget his chocolate milk.
Greg never ventured out on such important missions at 6am in the dead of winter, it may not be donuts but many a real man has gone out on these missions for things the baby wanted.

Glad we cleared that up.

And you only had to lie to do so…

You’re the one suddenly concerned with “religious freedom” because you think can use it for votes.

ABORTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY CHRISTIANITY OR JUDAISM.

That..is a fact.

Glad I cleared that up further.

Pretty ironic that Comrade Greggie wants to slam Catholics for being Nazis when he supports the current blood thirsty Nazis in Ukraine and wants to drag the Jews, and their faith, into his abortion support argument.

And why is he so curious (all of a sudden) as to my religious beliefs?

See, that is how the left operates; they slam religious faith until it is convenient for them to drag it out and pretend they are so very supportive of religious faith. Comrade Greggie’s political leanings demand the destruction of religious faith and faith in G-d. Socialism demands that there be no higher power than the government

Last edited 1 year ago by retire05

Look how far away you are now from any discussion about the relevance of First Amendment religious freedoms. Maybe it will go away. Maybe nobody will think about it, or nobody will care.

What you want is for the government to impose state control over other women’s bodies, to enforce your own religious views about when a person first exists.

It doesn’t matter to you that another person could be denied personal autonomy, or the expression of their own religious beliefs and duties in the process.

The reason we have a First Amendment is to prevent that.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

Seems you believe only those of certain faith think abortion is an abomination. It is a state issue much easier to change laws than at a federal level. The ruling as you know has not changed state laws California and NY can still murder newborns. If you dont like your state laws vote out the representatives, or move to a state that has laws that better represent your immoral murderous heart.
By the way you read the first amendment 2 ways either the state prohibits religion or cant interfere with anyones religion make up your mind. Stick to one cable channel mind control.
comment image

Last edited 1 year ago by kitt

The NY and Virginia laws invalidate Greg’s weak-ass argument, as they allow abortion AFTER actual birth. At that point, not only “life” is a foregone conclusion but the Jewish concept of “person” as well. But, for the left, NOTHING stops infanticide for convenience.

It doesn’t matter to you that another person could be denied personal autonomy, or the expression of their own religious beliefs and duties in the process.

That’s already happening…if you are a Christian.

The Right has constantly fought for “First Amendment religious freedoms.”

The LEFT HAS FOUGHT TO TAKE THEM AWAY.

Roe was poorly decided, as Ruth Bader Ginsberg pointed out to us. It was released as it should have been.

Now our Constitution is working properly, as this is a state issue.

If you are actually American, and some worthless coot in Indiana as you’ve claimed, then work with your state representatives to pass pro-abortion laws.

That’s how it works.

Women have control over their bodies. Abortion is an issue because of a babies body, which of course requires some to constantly reinvent when it’s a “life.”

Pro Tip: LGBT, toppling statues, rigged elections, and overall anarchy like we see from the Left are harbingers of societal collapse. The Red States will survive this atheistic takeover by your WEF-funded fools. The Blue States will not.

Ohhh the walls are closing in the Democrats have found the magic potion to sweep the election. Every woman and gelding will certainly vote based on this single issue. Blinded with rage that using a condom taking the pill, IUD foams, or the many other options to prevent an unwanted pregnancy are now something that have to be considered before jumping between the sheets. Oh woe is us! None of the obvious failings will matter, economy, foreign policy, laptops, dairies, dementia, inflation, food shortages…alas murder of the unborn and queer therapy in schools will sweep all of the GOP from office.
Greg has his illusions Trump taxes, Russia collusion, he seriously believes the talking heads owned by China. That boomers watching retirement funds decimated and 100 bucks to fill the tank GAFF about some self centered career girl being able to murder her product of a one night stand or the bosses kid as she tries to climb the ladder. The 10 year old victim of abuse may be traveling the country with low polling Democrats. The David Hog of the issue.

There isnt 1 word about abortion in the constitution, Satanist like to sacrifice animals and children, shall we allow Hillarys cohorts to sacrifice to Molech? Have you read the Koran, is it cool to behead people for not accepting Islam? Your argument is inane. The old testament says God formed infants in the womb, when the Baptist heard Mary, he leapt in the womb.
This doesnt have anything to do with a majority mob rule, its based on constitutional law. The States have the duty.

The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Rabbinical Court of America, Rabbi Marvin S. Antelman, clearly stated the position of Jewish law on abortion when he said:

All major religions have their parochial and their universal aspects, and the problem of abortion is not a parochial one. It is of universal morality, and it is neither a Catholic problem, nor a Jewish problem, nor a Protestant problem. It involves the killing of a human being, an act forbidden by universal commandment.

I assume a Rabbi would know better than a Nazi sympathizer the Jewish position on abortion which is allowed in the Jewish faith only due to “hard travail.”

“In his interpretation of the Third Noahide Law, Maimonides, the great twelfth-century interpreter and codifier of Jewish law, writes in his Mishneh Torah that abortion is a capital crime for the Jews: “A descendant of Noah who kills any human being, even a fetus in its mother’s womb, is to be put to death.”
Maimonides ruled that abortion is allowable only if the pregnancy definitely and without question endangers the life of the mother (Hilkhot Rozeah 1:9 and Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 425:2):”

Last edited 1 year ago by retire05

As usual, you miss the point: that RELIGIOUS OPINIONS VARY, and that such variance is protected by the First Amendment.

One Rabbi does not speak for all Jews, any more than one right-wing fundamentalist Bible thumper speaks for all Christians.

If a Jewish Doctor believes he is obliged to perform an abortion to spare the life of a pregnant woman because that’s what Torah says, the State is not allowed to tell him otherwise. The power of the State is constrained by the First Amendment.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

Nah. You’re fallaciously using religion to bolster an opinion that just doesn’t hold up to reality.

I’ve seen this new “Jewish” propaganda point all over the Leftist Disinformation Sphere.

Muslims, per their religion, require that we stone gays to death.

Thankfully we follow Constitutional Law, and not a theo-political ideology that can invoke “religion” when it wants to bypass the Constitution.

And you’ve finally take a Rightwing stance on religion. The owner of masterpiece cake shop in Colorado is glad you came around.

Welcome back to sanity, brother. You’re Rightwing, now.

You think the Jewish pro-choice perspective is something new? Do you have any clue how many Protestant denominations support a woman’s right to choose?

You’re as full of self-righteous bullshit as are of yourselves–both religious and political. Basically, you want to use government to impose your views on others, who have no problem at all letting you to lead your own lives as you wish.

Do you think that doesn’t show? It’s the sort of crap that the Founders fought a revolutionary war and created a Constitution to cast off.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

You think the Jewish pro-choice perspective is something new?

As a regime propaganda point? Oh yes. Very new.

Suddenly caring about non-Muslim religious “opinions” by using secular Jews is rather…laughable.

You, in fact, are using the government to impose your religious views on others, and don’t understand how our government works. The SC was correct in it’s decision.

The Constitution matters. The Founders fought for the right to practice any religion without the government trying to use it as a para-governmental tool. They did NOT allow for a theo-political movement to replace the Constitution under the guise of “practicing their religion.”

This applies to Islam as well as the Woke. Both are theocracies.

who have no problem at all letting you to lead your own lives as you wish.

Incorrect. The ire from zealous Atheists over the coach praying on the football field, and the SC correctly protecting his right to do so, is evidence.

I do not follow the Woke religion, yet it’s being forced and taught in public schools as if they were private religious institutions.

This new projection of you people to pretend you suddenly “support religious freedom” is very entertaining, however. Very entertaining.

The truth is, you people are demonically-motivated ghouls who want to kill off Christianity.

Good luck. Remember greg: God wins.

The Founders are clearly on the side of how Trump ran the country, and how most American’s see our Constitution as thoughtful constraints that allow the most freedom, not a free for all that allows bad guys like you to take over.

What country are you really in, where you post without seeming to know it’s only 3am in Indiana?

Just tell us who you work for. We know you’re not serious. Your posts are silly, and frequently undermine current or past arguments you pretend to make.

Consider the possibility that those who have completed one career and now work for themselves aren’t in lockstep with your own sleepy-time, beddy-bye schedule. You seem to have no difficulty imagining less probable scenarios.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

You think the Jewish pro-choice perspective is something new? 

How is a 4,000 year old concept of when a baby becomes a “person” an endorsement of abortion? Please explain, O, wise Rabbi.

It’s a codified religious moral precept, far older than the Constitution, that actually defines when personhood begins. Adherence to it by believers is a personal religious decision, protected under the First Amendment.

It prioritizes the life of a pregnant woman over the continuation of a pregnancy, making the the performance of an abortion to save a woman’s life the moral duty of any Jewish doctor who adheres to that rabbinical interpretation. To fail to do so would be an offense against God.

Do you think your own religious view is somehow better, to the extent that a state government can enact laws suppressing a competing religious belief system? The First Amendment specifically forbids that.

How is a 4,000 year old concept of when a baby becomes a “person” an endorsement of abortion? 

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

Tell us, Comrade Dumass, what percentage of abortions are performed to save the life of the mother?

First tell us what percentage of pregnant women you’d allow to die to support the Texas no-exception law.

You’ll yap and snap, but you won’t address the First Amendment issue, will you?

Tell us, Comrade Dumass, what percentage of abortions are performed to save the life of the mother?

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

Again you’re obfuscating to avoid answering a question because you know the answer does not serve your opinion. All you are doing is confirming that you are a mealy mouthed coward, to your very bones.

Any woman who willingly has sex and gets pregnant because she failed her responsibility in exercising her right to birth control doesn’t deserve my sympathy or respect any more than the drunk deserves my sympathy and respect when they complain about their hangovers.

Her life has value but so does the child she helped produce.

So coward, once again you ran like a scared rabbit. But that’s what scum does.

Last edited 1 year ago by retire05

I’m not obfuscating. I’ve clearly stated the applicable First Amendment principle, which you don’t want to deal with.

The Constitution doesn’t create a checklist of proscribed sexual behaviors that women must adhere to, before any of its protections are granted by some pissant state-level official. Nor is the personal sympathy, approval, or respect of either one of us first required.

Maybe you should reflect on your repeated vehement objections to my own observation that no Constitutional right is absolute.

Local, State, Federal.

That’s the order of precedence, and that’s how we do things in THIS country.

The States get to decide on abortion. It prevents a power-hungry and illegitimate federal government from gaining too much power and just becoming another standard banana republic dictatorship…

…which the installed Biden regime is bent on doing.

Score yet another blow for the Founders. They knew what money in politics would sow…and now that rotten harvest that Biden and other paid-installs is being burned in the fields.

Nope. Wrong. The United States Constitution is the foundation upon which all else is built. It takes precedent over all state law, which must be in compliance with its foundational principles, or be struck down. THAT is a FACT.

Local, State, Federal. That’s the order of precedence…

The states created the Constitution by ratification. The states preceded the Constitution. Basic civics 101

Is this idiot greg serious?

He doesn’t know the first thing about our government.

Notice there is complete abandonment of any discussion of issues that are most important this moment with the American people.

Abortion is not the top issue facing the majority of Americans today. Abortion has been decided by the Court, it is over. If at 71 years of age it is so important an issue for greg, he should work with the legislature in his state to make laws that allow women to continue to murder their babies.

The left worships their power of life or death over human beings. Of course, that power is over defenseless babies, but they take what they can get to give them their sense of being overlords.

Incorrect.

The Constitution lays our how our local, state, and federal governments work.

It’s bottom up, not top down.

That you’d lie about it, or are just too f*cking stupid to know better, is the real problem in this country: stupid people who are used to literally oppose our Constitution.

You.

Federal Law is the last, most constrained, level of our government. It’s not a sovereign, and it’s not a Monarchy. It has almost no police powers, which rabid communists like you just can’t stand.

We’ve been had by our enemies. Our fall is coming like all empires’ fall…from within.

Biden was installed to literally run us into the pier, but thankfully strong Red States are getting stronger and putting the corrupt Fed in its place.

The ‘States’ Rights’ issue and the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution was settled over 150 years ago. Did you also sleep through the class covering the American Civil War?

Uh, you must be from another country to say something so stupid.

The Constitution lays out how laws are made, from the local, state, and federal levels.

The Roe ruling was a bypassing of our Constitution, and now things have been dropped so our legally elected government can function as it is supposed to.

It’s some nebulous “state’s right” mumbo jumbo you can throw around

It’s the law of the land.

The 10th amendment is still in existence. There has never been a declarative case or condition where the Federal government has supremacy over states. That has been a created phenomenon. As long as the 10th amendment remains intact, any action taken by the federal government that is not specified in the Constitution under enumerated powers is unconstitutional.

The administrative state is unconstitutional.

“Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.”

 There has never been a declarative case or condition where the Federal government has supremacy over states. That has been a created phenomenon. 

No. That’s not how it works.

It’s in the best interest of a usurping political Party, such at the Democrats, to knowingly misinterpret and misrepresent the Constitution as doing the opposite of what it was designed to do:

Prevent a tyranny from forming, by many avenues…one of which being an overgrown Federal Government.

Our current Fed is bloated, corrupt, treasonous, and should be abolished so we can re-create it with fresh American Patriots who understand public service a serious, sacrificial duty for the special few who are called to it.

Not an avenue for the mediocre from the Law Schools to get rich.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

That’s pretty damn clear, because it was intentionally written to be clear.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

It’s pretty damn clear…that the Constitution sets forth the laws of the land, and those laws pertain to the states.

Local, state, fed.

That’s the order of magnitude.

What you cite, poorly, is that the states must adhere to the Constitution…that gives the power of enforcing the laws to the states.

Epic fail, on your part.

Interesting that you did not supply the actual text.

 It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.”

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States.[1]

Swing and a miss. You failed even the rudimentary understanding of civics. The tenth amendment followed the Constitution. It does not nullify the text of ArticleVI, rather it defines explicitly what the Federal government can and cannot do.
Were you a strict Constitutionalist, i.e., Scalia, Thomas or Alito this would not be confusing to you.

Amendment XThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What powers? Those that states create, like they’re pulling rabbits out of a hat? Like the power to take control of a pregnant woman’s body, and decree that any fertilized egg must result in a birth?

I don’t think that’s what the Tenth Amendment actually says. You don’t get to enslave intelligent women as state-owned incubation machines. Nothing gives such power to a state.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

What powers? Those not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.

As to the 10th Amendment; you would not understand it if it were tatooed on your forearm. “State owned incubation machines?” Of course, you will always agree with a decision by a left wing USSC, i.e. Lawrence.

Can you get any more absurd or idiotic?

Comrade Greggie, you are dumber than a brick.

Last edited 1 year ago by retire05

Nope. Wrong. The United States Constitution is the foundation upon which all else is built. It takes precedent over all state law, 

But what you are trying to argue, using a religious precept that declares, for religious and social purposes, a human being doesn’t become a “person” (not the same as “life”) until birth, is that if a “religion” worshiped human sacrifice, the government would have to allow it because of the First Amendment.

Every state has a law against murder. Murder is murder, regardless if it is a religious murder or committed in “private”.

Not exactly the “bombshell” you thought it was. Simply more of your pathetic grasping at desperate straws.

Murder doesn’t occur when a conscious person hasn’t yet come into existence to be murdered.

For you to claim that such a thing has happened, a religion-based assumption that a new person exists at the moment of conception must first be accepted. This not only runs contrary to many other religious and moral interpretations, but to common sense.

Every state has a law against murder.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

Murder doesn’t occur when a conscious person hasn’t yet come into existence to be murdered.

Someone needs to tell that to the judge and jury who sat in the Scott Peterson trial as they convicted him of 2nd degree murder of his unborn child.

You’re an idiot, Comrade Greggie. Full stop.

Last edited 1 year ago by retire05

There was autopsy evidence that the body of the infant might not have been “unborn”. If you want to read about it, it’s here. I have no intention of mentioning such details just to counter your b.s. argument, which really doesn’t address my comments regarding your total disregard of the First Amendment.

You’ve not made a case about the First Amendment yet.

We decide things democratically through our Constitutional processes.

We are doing such with abortion, and claiming “religious freedom” with a made up demographic of “Jews” while actively telling Christians they can’t have their religion is…well…proof that you must have Downs Syndrome.

Jesus would likely take one look at right-wing politicized Christianity and sadly shake his head. Billy Graham might say, “See? I told you.”

Jesus’s ministry was against the religious zealots and religionists of His day, who were actually misleading people by misrepresenting the Word of God.

As for the now, there is no “right-wing politicized Christianity.” It simply doesn’t exist (the one distorted Leftist link you’re already off to copy and paste will be promptly ignored as the trash it is). There are only strawmen invented by the Left to keep their flock angry and not thinking about the consequences of the lives they lead, or how forcing that life on others is wrong.

The legal and correct release of Roe v Wade by the SC has nothing to do with religion. You fools are trying to make it into such, because that kind of ignorance keeps antifa attacking people in the streets, but doesn’t really help the non-existent Democrat Platform if their mob was actually educated on our Constitution.

Thank God Florida is requiring kids actually learn about our American history so they don’t fall prey to godless predators like you.

Comrade Greggie is Socialist atheist scum but his violent side has now decided to try to use whatever religious tenants they can find to shame Christians into believing that abortion is good, saving babies lives is bad because those babies really are not humans anyway. At least not humans that count because they can’t live on their own (one of their major excuses).

Last edited 1 year ago by retire05

What’s hilarious is that he doesn’t even know my opinion on abortion. I support our Constitution and how it’s been set up for local, state, and federal governments to pass laws and enforce the democratic will of the people.

Leftists have been taught that if their candidate doesn’t win, the winner is a dangerous “Nazi” who must be removed.

That’s insurrection. Real insurrection.

The legal and correct release of Roe v Wade by the SC has nothing to do with religion. You fools are trying to make it into such, because that kind of ignorance keeps antifa attacking people in the streets, but doesn’t really help the non-existent Democrat Platform if their mob was actually educated on our Constitution.

Hell, religion is simply the latest desperate straw they are grasping. They’ve tried everything to justify their bloodlust.

Jesus would likely take one look at right-wing politicized Christianity and sadly shake his head.  

Jesus would look at the babies you leftists think can legally be left on a delivery table to die because being responsible is difficult and inconvenient and ask you, “What the F**K are you thinking?!?”

I don’t think I will give consideration to what a supporter of infanticide on demand thinks Jesus would believe.

The LA Times article is moot. Peterson was convicted of first degree murder of his wife and second degree murder of his unborn child.

And your opinion that “Murder doesn’t occur when a conscious person hasn’t yet come into existence to be murdered” is just another instance of you being wrong and not knowing what the he!! you are talking about.

Last edited 1 year ago by retire05

There was autopsy evidence that the body of the infant might not have been “unborn”. 

“might not”? Why are the majority of your arguments based on “may have”, “may not”, “apparently”, “could be” or “it is thought”? Also, in some liberal states that is currently a “legal abortion”. Support for that barbaric practice is inhumane.

So let’s get this straight:

You say to view a conception as life is a “religious” point of view, and therefore not valid…but then try to trick-f*ck a minority “Jewish” religious point of view as the reason abortion on demand should be a law not decided Constitutionally by the states?

You, sir, are a disgrace to whatever outfit is paying you to run propaganda.

You literally destroy your own arguments, again and again.

P.S. – Common sense says when a pregnancy starts, it’s a life that will grow to adulthood and is a person.

A political and feminist agenda requires that common sense, and reason, be abandoned so that “life” is defined whenever it serves a person’s agenda.

NO. I said to view a conception as a PERSON is a religious point of view. Many deceitful anti-choice arguments are based on deliberately confusing that distinction.

You say to view a conception as life is a “religious” point of view…

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

NO. You coward.

Deciding when it’s a “person” determines when the laws apply. It’s not a religious point of view. It’s a legal definition you are trying to manipulate (poorly).

The “choice” is the choice to have sex.

It takes me a few times for my post to go through as well, you idiot. You’re a troll. I’m a citizen.

You literally destroy your own arguments, again and again.

That’s because he doesn’t have a valid argument, so he just keeps throwing things out there to see if something resonates. We are supposed to believe someone that keeps insisting religion should be kept out of our government thinks a 4,000 year old religious law should decide what murder is.

Murder doesn’t occur when a conscious person hasn’t yet come into existence to be murdered.

Murder occurs when the life of a human being is snuffed out without lawful cause. What has happened with abortion is you abortion cult worshipers don’t have the personal responsibility (thus your addiction to abortion and membership in the cult) to limit yourselves to a reasonable, rational and ethical use of abortion. You can’t admit that life begins at a time that is inconvenient for your cult, so you ignore it altogether. You’ve turned into spoiled little crybabies that push the limits of humanity and civilization simply to prove you can do whatever you want to do whenever you want to do it. Ultimately and inevitably, this led to very late term abortions that NO ONE can argue is not absolutely murder and stoked outrage and rejection of the very concept of abortion throughout the nation.

If your idea of abortion “rights” was transferred to gun rights, we would argue that anyone and everyone should be able to have a gun and shoot whomever they want who bothers them… as long as it is done privately. The “right to kill” is buried somewhere in the Constitution and just because you can’t find it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Absurd, isn’t it?

No, to believe that a viable baby that could survive outside the womb at 20+ weeks does not require believing life begins at conception, though that is not a disproven concept. It merely requires a respect for a life other than your own.

what percentage of abortions are performed to save the life of the mother?

And your answer is?

Oh, that’s right; you avoided answering a direct question because you are just a scum of a coward.

Last edited 1 year ago by retire05

It is a very small percentage compared to the number of babies murdered

It’s a codified religious moral precept, far older than the Constitution, that actually defines when personhood begins. Adherence to it by believers is a personal religious decision, protected under the First Amendment.

Why don’t you, FOR ONCE, answer a question? Are you replacing science with religious dogma? Don’t we separate church from state? Where in the Constitution does it say that the Torah takes precedence over the Constitution or state laws?

The question is when does LIFE begin, not when they can open a credit account. Your reasoning is backwards; no one is forcing Jews to do anything. Their religious beliefs have nothing to do with when abortion is murder.

There’s no need to answer the question. It isn’t relevant to the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion, which separates Church from State.

Science does not provide answers to moral questions. It’s not the foundation of moral principles. It can only answer questions about the workings of the material universe.

No. You’ve failed to make this a First Amendment issue, so please…keep trying.

Not allowing the SC to decide abortion through a trick from 1974, and keeping with our legal government by letting states decide, is just the right thing to do.

You have NO case for religious freedoms or the first amendment, especially after you’ve tried to take these away for so many years.

Own your failure.

Separation of Church and State prevents a state-run religion. It does NOT prevent people from practicing or professing their faith…publicly or otherwise.

Women are going to cut the GOP’s balls off at the ballot box. Stacking the Supreme Court to overturn a 50-year precedent was the stupidest thing they’ve done in the past 50 years–with the possible exception of selling their souls to the likes of Donald Trump to accomplish it.

Do you see anybody marching in the streets over the price of gasoline, inflation, or US military aid to Ukraine?

What about the Supreme Court decision?

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

Women are going to cut the GOP’s balls off at the ballot box. 

That’s your plan, but it’s rather weak…so no. Instead of a viable platform, just make the masses pissed…by lying. That’s all the Democrats can do.

Stacking the Supreme Court 

The Supreme Court was not “stacked.” This is another lie you douchebags keep knowingly pushing. Trump, as was his duty, appointed 3 Judges because we needed three judges. Perhaps RBG’s pride got the best of her…or she was told HRC was a “sure thing?”

PACKING is when you cheat by adding more justices so you can have a supermajority. It’s something Biden and his regime have talked about doing, which would be tantamount to insurrection.

Do you see anybody marching in the streets over the price of gasoline, inflation, or US military aid to Ukraine?

Useless people “march.” Sane Americans are stockpiling food, water, and bullets for when you people realized you’ve been duped. Inciting violent Leftist riots over Roe and the like is what tyrannical governments do when they are taking over.

You conflate power, influence, and support with screaming morons protesting things they don’t even understand.

Average Americans now know they live in a compromised Republic with an infected Democrat Party simply trying to install a one-party police state.

Bullshit. Your statement is a typical right-wing projection. The GOP cock-blocked confirmation hearings on Obama’s appointment for nearly a year, never allowing debates or a vote, and then Mr. Peanut–proud owner of The Tiniest Gun in the West–methodically politicized the bench by appointing 3 activist conservative judges back-to-back, who carefully concealed their intentions to overturn Roe v. Wade at the first opportunity.

PACKING is when you cheat by adding more justices so you can have a supermajority. It’s something Biden and his regime have talked about doing, which would be tantamount to insurrection.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

Incorrect. Obama tried to force through an appointment at the end of his term, and the GOP rightly required the usual process and decorum.

Again, since you missed it:

The Supreme Court was not “stacked.” This is another lie you douchebags keep knowingly pushing. Trump, as was his duty, appointed 3 Judges because we needed three judges. Perhaps RBG’s pride got the best of her…or she was told HRC was a “sure thing?”

PACKING is when you cheat by adding more justices so you can have a supermajority. It’s something Biden and his regime have talked about doing, which would be tantamount to insurrection.

PACKING IS WHEN YOU CHEAT AND ADD MORE JUSTICES SO YOU CAN HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY AND BYPASS DEMOCRACY WITH THE COURT.

Trump did not such thing, loser.

Cope.

The end of Obama’s second term was still a year away. Ironically, his nominee may soon indict Obama’s successor and/or several of his co-conspirators.

Obama tried to force through an appointment at the end of his term…

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

No. The media play that the Republicans somehow “cheated” has been debunked again and again. Cry me a river, son.

Again, perhaps RBG should have shown some humility and retired during Obama…or did she think the dream of her being replaced by the first female President was a “sure thing” because that was the plan?

We all know the answer to that.

Her choice to stay is what allowed our government to simply resist the one-party police state the Democrats are pushing for, so I’m thankful.

Trump legally and normally appointed three justices, as we all know.

Now traitorous Democrats want to PACK the court? And they still think they can “indict” Trump on false charges?

Good luck with that.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nathan Blue

 The GOP cock-blocked confirmation hearings on Obama’s appointment

Funny you should term keeping Garland out of the Supreme Court that way, but it definitely applies. Looking at the fascist character of Garland’s DOJ, I would say denying is confirmation as a Justice was McConnell’s greatest contribution to this nation. Garland has proven himself to definitely be a dick in the service of the far left.

And there other three leftists on the court are not exactly minds of brilliance. The two who have been on the court have nothing of notoriety in terms of opinion either for the majority as a case found for the left or dissent in opposition to a majority opinion.

Maybe you should all head off to your bunkers until everything blows over. And then it probably would.

Last edited 1 year ago by Greg

Nah. We’re doing well. It’s the woke, atheist nuts like you who are in for a rude awakening.

This country will persist. Nothing is going to “blow over.” The insurrectionist Left will not succeed.

We don’t suffer tyrants…in our WH, or in our schools.

As usual, you miss the point: that RELIGIOUS OPINIONS VARY, and that such variance is protected by the First Amendment.

You are aware, I assume, that the government (currently) does not IMPOSE abortion upon anyone of any religion?

If a Jewish Doctor believes he is obliged to perform an abortion to spare the life of a pregnant woman because that’s what Torah says, the State is not allowed to tell him otherwise. 

Yet you don’t believe a doctor should be allowed to refuse to perform an abortion based on his religious beliefs. Aside from your hatred of our country, do you have ANY beliefs that do not change with the direction of the wind?

Rabbinic Judaism does not regard a fetus as a full human being. One is a human being—a person—only after birth, and the taking of the first breath.

So, when it serves you, you believe religion is science?

Apparently the left can’t tell the difference between, “This pregnancy could kill you. We have to terminate it.” and, “Boy, that weekend of drinking and screwing was fun. I better have the result of all that fun killed so I can have MORE fun. I can always kill the outcome.”

This is why we only execute convicted criminals and not just random people that annoy us.