Pelosi Declares That It Is ‘Radical’ to Ban the Killing of Unborn Babies After 15 Weeks of Pregnancy
(CNSNews.com) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) put out a statement on Wednesday morning criticizing the Mississippi abortion law that the Supreme Court was going to review that day and declaring that the law—which bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy—was radical.
Pelosi also declared it “would seriously erode the legitimacy of the court” if it did not overthrow the Mississippi law.
“Mississippi’s radical abortion ban, part of a nationwide assault against women’s freedoms targeting in particular women of color and women from low-income communities, is brazenly unconstitutional and designed to destroy Roe v. Wade,” said Pelosi.
“Yet again, Republicans are trying to control a woman’s most personal decisions about her body and her family and are trying to criminalize health care professionals for providing reproductive care,” she said.
“The constitutional right to an abortion has been repeatedly affirmed, and any failure to fully strike down the Mississippi ban would seriously erode the legitimacy of the Court, as the Court itself warned in its ruling in Casey, and question its commitment to the rule of law itself,” said Pelosi.
Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement in advance of the U.S. Supreme Court hearing arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, challenging Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban. The Speaker joined a bicameral amicus brief in the case in September.
“As the Supreme Court hears arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it has the opportunity and responsibility to honor the Constitution, the law and this basic truth: every woman has the constitutional right to basic reproductive health care.
“Mississippi’s radical abortion ban, part of a nationwide assault against women’s freedoms targeting in particular women of color and women from low-income communities, is brazenly unconstitutional and designed to destroy Roe v. Wade. Yet again, Republicans are trying to control a woman’s most personal decisions about her body and her family and are trying to criminalize health care professionals for providing reproductive care. The constitutional right to an abortion has been repeatedly affirmed, and any failure to fully strike down the Mississippi ban would seriously erode the legitimacy of the Court, as the Court itself warned in its ruling in Casey, and question its commitment to the rule of law itself.
“The House is committed to defending women’s health freedoms and to enshrining into law our House-passed Women’s Health Protection Act, led by Congresswoman Judy Chu, to protect reproductive health care for all women across America.”
Sen. Hawley: 'This Is the Time to Overrule Roe'; 'Let the People Have Their Say'
(CNSNews.com) - It's time to return the abortion issue to the people in the various states, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) told Fox News's Laura Ingraham Wednesday night, hours after the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging Mississippi's ban on most abortions after 15 weeks.
"This is about democracy, this is about the people of this country actually having a say for the first time in 50 years on this important question," Hawley said:
And listen, this is a moral question. I mean, the abortion issue is a moral issue, and that is exactly why the American people should get to have a say. And nine justices shouldn't be imposing their moral views on the rest of the country, and we can't do anything about it.
So this is about democracy, and it's about returning this issue where it belongs, which is to the American people in the states. The Constitution commits it to the people, the people should have the final say here.
Hawley said the nation has waited 50 years for the right case to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling in which the Supreme Court found a legal right to abortion. In that ruling, the court overstepped its bounds, Hawley said:
"What has destroyed the court's legitimacy in many ways and what has turned the court into a political football is Roe. It is the court legislating from the bench what the rules are going to be for every state in the nation, for every person in the nation."
Hawley noted that "every justice on the United States Supreme Court has acknowledged in past years there is an interest in unborn life. The question is, when does that interest become compelling?" Hawley asked.
"And the answer is, it is compelling throughout the pregnancy, because the unborn child has rights throughout the pregnancy and it's time the court recognized that and got out of the business of imposing their moral views on the rest of the country.
"That's not the court's place, it has badly damaged their legitimacy. It's time to stop that, and it's time to allow the American people to reclaim the basic promise of America, which means that in this country, every person has inalienable rights, and that includes the unborn. They, too, are valuable; they, too, are protected, and it's time to let the people make good on that promise."
During oral arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh clarified that upholding the Mississippi abortion ban would not ban abortion in other states.
Kavanaugh told Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart: "As I understand it, you're arguing that the Constitution's silent and therefore neutral on the question of abortion; in other words, that the Constitution's neither pro-life nor pro-choice on the question of abortion, but leaves the issue for the people of the states or perhaps Congress to resolve through the democratic process. Is that accurate?"
"We're saying it's left to the people, your honor," Stewart replied.
"So if you were to prevail," Kavanaugh asked, "the states -- majority of states or states still could or -- and presumably would continue to freely allow abortion. Many states, some states would be able to do that, even if you prevail under your view, is that correct?"
"That's consistent with our view, your honor," Stewart said. "It's one that allows all interests to have full voice, and many of the abortions we see in certain states that I don't think anybody would think would be moving to change their laws in a more restrictive direction."
Sen. Marshall: The Founding Fathers ‘Valued the Sanctity of Life’
Asked if the Founding Fathers believed in a right to abortion, Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), an obstetrician, said, “I think that they valued the sanctity of life.”
At the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, CNS News asked the senator, “Did the Founding Fathers believe in a right to abortion?”
“I have no idea. I think they were godly men and I think that they valued the sanctity of life,” Marshall replied.
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments this week in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case to decide if states can restrict abortion before the point of fetal viability.
According to the standard established in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, no state can place an undue burden on a woman’s ability to get an abortion before her baby is considered viable, or able to survive outside of the womb.
The Mississippi law prevents abortion after a baby has reached 15 weeks of gestation. Fetal viability is considered to occur at 24 weeks, meaning this law violates the standards of the Roe v. Wade and Casey precedent.
However, there has been significant skepticism of basis in the Constitution of the Roe and Casey decisions, with many legal scholars arguing that there is no constitutional foundation at all. Former chief justice of the Supreme Court William Rehnquist argued that Roe’s lack of constitutionality has created a mess for future abortion restrictions and legislation.
“The key elements of the Roe framework – trimesters and viability – are not found in the text of the Constitution or in any place else one would expect to find a constitutional principle,” Rehnquist wrote. “The result has been a web of legal rules that have become increasingly intricate, resembling a code of regulations, rather than a body of constitutional doctrine.”
The Dobbs case gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to overturn the Roe precedent, or at least adjust its standards and return back to the intentions of the Founding Fathers, former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese III says.
“Failing to reverse Roe and Casey in a case squarely presenting the question would suggest that the Founders’ views cannot compete with the preferred positions of some special interests,” Meese wrote in a Washington Post commentary published Wednesday.
“For the sake of a republic of laws and not of men, I hope the court will ratify the promise of the Founders’ Constitution,” Meese says.
Josh Hawley: Supreme Court Challenge to ‘Roe v. Wade’ Could Fix ‘Greatest Injustice in Our Lifetimes’
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) told Breitbart News a victory in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization might solve the “greatest injustice in our lifetimes” that is Roe v. Wade.
Hawley — a law former clerk to Supreme Court Justice John Roberts and considered a top Constitutional lawyer — said that after hearing the first day of oral arguments that Roe v. Wade is “very much in play.”
Hawley, who was also a former Missouri attorney general, explained that many Supreme Court justices asked “foundational questions” about Roe. He predicted the Supreme Court would rule 6-3 in favor of upholding the Mississippi law.
Hawley told Breitbart News this could be the case that could overturn Roe and solve one of the country’s greatest injustices.
People listen during an anti-abortion rally outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 30, 2021, as activists begin to arrive ahead of arguments on abortion at the court in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Hawley explained, “It would mean the reaching of a landmark goal that I mean, frankly, I have to say just personally, that Roe is one of the reasons that the major reason that I went into politics, and I think that’s true for many, many other people. That’s one of the major reasons I was interested in the law. And this is the greatest injustice of our lifetimes.”
The Missouri populist described this potential ruling as “seismic” and could actually turn “down the heat” on the abortion question because it would allow states to make their own laws restricting abortions.
I think you’d see real deliberation for the first time in 50 years, because the public would actually get to weigh in and their voices would actually matter,” he added.
Hawley said, “I just have to say that someone who believes that that row is one of the worst decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court, I think it would be a monumental moral landmark and reverse a great injustice.”
“And after listening to the argument, I believe this could be the case that finally reverses the great injustice of Roe. It may all come down to Amy Barrett,” Hawley wrote Wednesday.
The case is Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.
No comments:
Post a Comment