"This was a welcome clarification of the noncommittal statement Ms. Psaki made Friday. A Montgomery County ordinance permits protest marches in residential areas but bars stationary gatherings, arguably such as those in front of the Roberts and Kavanaugh residences. A federal law — 18 U.S.C. Section 1507 — prohibits 'pickets or parades' at any judge’s residence, 'with the intent of influencing' a jurist 'in the discharge of his duty.' These are limited and justifiable restraints on where and how people exercise the right to assembly. Citizens should voluntarily abide by them, in letter and spirit. If not, the relevant governments should take appropriate action."
Writes the Editorial Board of The Washington Post in "Leave the justices alone at home."
One thing the editorial doesn't mention is that this physically threatening activism is detrimental to the abortion rights cause.
Many, perhaps most, Americans are conflicted about abortion, and this violent or violence-adjacent behavior may make it harder for them — for us — to take refuge in the intellectualized principle of personal autonomy that makes it possible to understand abortion as an individual right. If abortion is just a cause for a battle of wills — if there is violence or the threat of violence — the fact that what is demanded is an entitlement to commit violence against the unborn might draw those who have been so conflicted to the anti-abortion side.
Posts
53 comments:
And yet, nobody will be arrested and nobody will be prosecuted.
As long as you are a member of the progressive left that runs DC you are golden.
A lifetime get out of jail free card.
Leftism is evil.
The incestuous State-Media relationship is nauseating...
The pro-abortion side draws persons... people to the human rights' side. To the dignity and agency of women's four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption ("shared responsibility"), compassion ("personal responsibility"), and self-defense through reconciliation. Away from reproductive rites for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. Away from feminists and masculinists who want to keep women appointed, available, and taxable. Away from the Lefts' wicked solution.
That said, a conveniently timed distraction from Obama, Biden's world Spring series, progressive prices, progressive energy, immigration reform, transgender conversion therapy, planned parent/hood (e.g. Whitmer/Michigan, Cuomo/New York), diversity, inequity, and exclusion policy, etc.
You're talking persuasion. The mob is talking coercion (as are many leftist commentators like Laura Jarret, not to let Biden et al off the hook).
Did Biden himself tell the protestors to stand down? Are we still waiting for that? Did Psaki even tell them to stand down?
How long was too long of a wait for Trump on J6? Why does that not apply to Biden?
"... if there is violence of the threat of violence — the fact that what is demanded is an entitlement to commit violence against the unborn might draw those who have been so conflicted to the anti-abortion side."
This type of reasoning seems to be above the pay-grade of members of the Ruth Bader-Meinhof gang.
The Pro Life side…
"...this violent or violence-adjacent behavior may make it harder for them — for us — to take refuge in the intellectualized principle of personal autonomy that makes it possible to understand abortion as an individual right..."
From "Easy Rider":
“We did it, man. We did it, we did it. We’re rich, man,” says Billy, referring to the drug money hidden inside the Stars & Stripes-festooned fuel tank of Wyatt’s Hydra-Glide chopper. “We’re retirin’ in Florida now, mister.”
Instead of reveling in the moment Wyatt answers cryptically, “You know Billy. We blew it.”
"We blew it”: That is what is echoing in my head.
The Pro-Choice People had a good thing going, but they got greedy: they wanted more.
Roe v. Wade will never die, man: it's Freedom. So:
"Safe, legal and rare"? That's for squares.
First trimester abortion? No: we want abortion to the point of crowning, and we want to rub your faces into it.
Accept some regulation, as the enlightened Europeans do? What are you, Fascist? Racist? Misogynist? Fuck the Patriarchy "The Handmaid's Tale" etc etc etc. Also: let's sell the parts of aborted fetuses, too, Because We Can Ha Ha.
This is on the Progressives, and the Liberals who didn't say a word as Pro-Choice increasingly became an abattoir.
Fuck around and find out, as it were.
I am Laslo.
DC and its VA suburbs are Enemy-occupied territory. The only law there is Garland law, which is no law at all.
"this physically threatening activism is detrimental to the abortion rights cause"
Remains to be seen. Many GOPers and judges like Roberts are cowards. So terrorism can influence elite figures even if it does not sway the masses.
Plus the radicals know that the Althouses of America love abortion more than they hate prog terror. Will it change their voting behavior? You tell us.
If Two Scoops really believes that the pro-abortionists should stand down, then he needs to say that from the White House, using either the actual Oval Office, or the fake one. Until then, he's being silent. And silence is violence, according to the Left.
He needs to repeat that statement hourly. Unless he does that, he support obstructing the Justices and pressuring the SC. Just another charge for his impeachment hearings.
There will be riots this summer. Count on it.
Laslo - +1000
The progressives did blow it. In addition to demanding abortion up until crowning, they also relied solely on the Court to protect this right. They didn’t do the hard work of passing laws at the state and federal level. That would have required compromise.
Take gun rights activists. We’ve passed concealed carry and constitutional carry laws in state after state. We’ve helped women and minorities learn to safely and responsibly operate a fire arm. We’ve created a body of legal analysis and legal history to support rights keep and near firearms. This is because we KNOW a progressive WILL end the 2nd amendment as we know it. That’s a certainty and while we work to stop it, we also know it’s a very real risk. So we’ve worked hard to ensure as many stated as possible have our rights embedded in their state constitutions. The SCOTUS to try and end out right but it would be very difficult.
The entire time I’ve read this blog’s responses (from both Althouse and progressive commentators), I’ve never once heard anyone on the pro-abortion side admit that at some point in the pregnancy, a viable human life dies in an abortion.
This Dobbs decision sorts out one of two ways. Either the Roe and Casey struck down and it’s now to the states. Or, Roe and Casey are partially affirmed but the Mississippi ban at 15 weeks is upheld, giving stated the option of banning abortion after 15 weeks like the rest of the civilized world. Either way, for many people in the US, the rights of the unborn will have been found after 62m deaths over 50 years.
"...understand abortion as an individual right."
That's where you lose me, Ms Althouse.
RvW, which was created from the emanations of a penumbra by 7 men (6 of them old white men), has never been a right. The decision prohibited what those 7 men thought were unreasonable restrictions on abortion, but calling it a "right" is argument by assertion.
As has been pointed out ad nauseam, even RBG thought it was poor law, and a poor way to get the country to come to a consensus on abortion.
I realize that I am on very thin ice here, having spent 0 hours in law school, disagreeing with you, but apparently there are at least 5, maybe 6, actual Justices who agree with me. I can live with free access to 1st trimester abortion, but I'll go along with what my fellow Texans decide through out legislature. I'll be unhappy with what CA, NY, IL, MD, MA, etc., come up with, but that's democracy. I was conceived in one of those states and I'm very happy that that was before I could have been extinguished on a whim.
“the intellectualized principle of personal autonomy…”
For most of my 72 years I believed this. Until I realised — duh! — that it’s *another* body, and no one has the right, basis “personal autonomy” to kill a small human, no matter how inconvenient. Which is how I ended up “pro-choice” but “ant-abortion”. Pro-choice because of maternal safety. But changing “safe, legal and rare” to “safe legal and discouraged”.
I’m a father and grandfather, been involved in several discussions w significant others over whether or not to … I used to be non-committal. Now, if asked, I’d be more on the side of discouraging, including offering to care myself for the born human.
So good to see Laslo, and he's spot-on.
What the lunatics are doing is a feature, not a bug. Most of us know by now that they intend to destroy our way of life, but not all of us know yet that they are also willing to injure, imprison, and kill us.
Buckle up, buttercup. And invest in lead.
Calls for civility are always bullshit.
If Biden actually thought and then coherently spoke something sensible - a substantial set of assumptions - then this falls into the "even a (visually impaired/disabled) pig finds an acorn once in a while" category.
While I believe most liberals are pro choice on principle, Ithink for most of the “left” it’s about will to power all the time.
Is was going to comment on the stare decisis post about this but you bring the concept of personal (or bodily) autonomy.
to take refuge in the intellectualized principle of personal autonomy that makes it possible to understand abortion as an individual right.
Yet when given a chance to apply this principle to vax mandate the three pro choice justices said ‘we good, experiment on the populace all you want, go team’. To my way of thinking any concept of personal autonomy robust enough for abortion, should have made easy work of a vax mandate. Yet other than some musings by Justice Barret it wasn’t discussed and the case was decided on other issues. So will I believe in personal autonomy just believe that there is a rights conflict that falls in the unborn child’s favor. The is an important discussion to be had. But for 50 years all heard is no need to discuss we’ve decided . Now with vax mandates, and all the rest on their mind the right is ready more than ever to engage, if only the left would just stop screaming at the sky.
Nobody likes a jerk (I toned down my original language on this comment). People who behave like jerks for political reasons only gain the support of fellow jerks. Whatever the merits of their beliefs may be, their actions are repellent to decent, normal people, and there are a lot more of us than there are of the jerks.
@ Joe Smith
The statute of limitations on their actions will not have run out in 2023 or 2025. Let's see what happens then. Nothing is forever, including maintaining unbridled political power.
Prof A: your articulation is astute but highly intellectualized. That doesn’t make it wrong, just less instantly compelling. It explains but won’t inspire. If my own reaction (to the bats***-crazy Prog steps of late) is any guide, I am no longer much concerned with fine turns of logic and niceties of principle, and am moving toward a visceral rejection of all that the other side tries to say or do. That interior turn —toward contemptuous deafness and categorical refusal— is wonderfully simplifying and even invigorating.
It is also the path to civil war and civilizational ruin. We see its likeness in Eastern Europe over the past few months. My point is: it can happen. I think it is happening. What are we going to do to stop it?
... might draw those who have been so conflicted to the anti-abortion side.
.... to the pro-life side.
IF they are REALLY so concerned, WHY aren't they doing anything about it, like they would if they were Trump Supporters.
The thing that's so remarkable is not that Psaki eventually said the President abhors violence blah blah blah. It's that she didn't feel she could say that right off the bat.
Brought to you by the same people who cannot tell you what a woman is, what a man is, what gender they are on any given day, what a crime looks like, what civil society is, what racism actually is, what a baby is, and what liberty is. They seem to not be able to define any of these terms.
They have no solid philosophical base to stand on. They are like people standing in quicksand, trying to come up with definitions as they keep sinking.
Psaki will fit in perfectly on MSNBC, the network that defines alternate realities.
I continue to hold to my theory that the politico leak came from the WH, and their behavior with regards to the protests is part of the reason why. I suspect that they got a copy of the draft opinion sometime after Alito circulated it and leaked it now because they needed a major distraction. The protests were planned ahead of time.
I'm disappointed in Virginia's new governor. This was his chance to prove his bona fides. Everyone of those protesters should have been arrested, and the neighborhoods secured. Instead, he's an enabler. Republican leaders have to stop being cowards.
Serious Question
IF you are (more than) willing, to Murder your own child.. Because that child is "inconvenient";
WHY Wouldn't you be (more than) willing to Murder a Judge (or Anyone Else) that stood in your way?
Abortion IS Murder... People that commit abortion commit murder... Murderers MURDER
How about people refrain from threatening judges because doing so is immoral, and to hell with whether it hurts or helps the cause.
Or is that too much to expect?
"That's where you lose me, Ms Althouse. RvW, which was created from the emanations of a penumbra by 7 men (6 of them old white men), has never been a right."
You're fighting with a phantom. I didn't say it WAS a right. I said it was possible to UNDERSTAND it as a right. I don't see how you can disagree with that. Do you think everyone who believes it is a right is lying? And the Roe v. Wade reasoning was replaced in Casey, so the "penumbras and emanations" approach, which I do think some people really believed, gave way to defining "liberty" within the Due Process Clause. "Liberty" is an abstract word, and judges need to say what it means in particular contexts, using a method of interpretation.
I question whether you want to say that it's not even POSSIBLE to understand how anyone could sincerely think of liberty in terms of an individual's autonomy when it comes to going through with pregnancy and childbirth. But that's what you would need to say to be arguing with ME and not with a phantom.
"This was a welcome clarification..."
Read that as, "Oh crap. This is NOT a good look for us."
"Prof A: your articulation is astute but highly intellectualized. That doesn’t make it wrong, just less instantly compelling. It explains but won’t inspire."
I do not aim to compel or inspire. That's not what I do here. I am not writing a brief. I am not a lawyer for anybody or any side and I am not interested in being persuasive or helping those who are fighting to persuade. That is emphatically not the purpose of this blog. It is continually obvious to me that I could edit to make stronger arguments for one side or the other, and that's exactly what I don't do. If I had to do that, I wouldn't blog. You'd have to pay me at least $1000 an hour... but I still wouldn't do it, because I like writing this blog, which is what it is.
gilbar said...
Serious Question
IF you are (more than) willing, to Murder your own child.. Because that child is "inconvenient";
WHY Wouldn't you be (more than) willing to Murder a Judge (or Anyone Else) that stood in your way?
Abortion IS Murder... People that commit abortion commit murder... Murderers MURDER
5/10/22, 6:48 AM
THIS....100% THIS!!!
This is Psaki wiping Biden's fingerprints from the crime scene. Which Joe is too stupid or out of it to do himself.
How one can pretend to be against violence, while at the same time advocating for abortion, boggles the mind. Do you not know what an abortion entails? It is the epitome of violence against the defenseless.
"I didn't say it WAS a right. I said it was possible to UNDERSTAND it as a right. I don't see how you can disagree with that. Do you think everyone who believes it is a right is lying?"
Have you seen what the left says they believe these days? Your exceedingly abstract rationale encourages that lunacy, so consider in that light whether you are being persuasive, or whether in the end your argument boils down to will to power too.
“…like writing this blog, which is what it is”. Amen to that.
I hasten to apologize for giving the impression in my comment that I was criticizing your take, your method, your blog. It works very well as is, and insofar as anyone might want debate and inspiration and activity to emerge from the blog, I think they do, very nicely. The cross-section of viewpoints and the thrust and parry of argument here are IMHO best in class. You set the conditions and people respond.
Long statement of the obvious, I guess. I’ll shut up now.
"IF you are (more than) willing, to Murder your own child.. Because that child is "inconvenient";
WHY Wouldn't you be (more than) willing to Murder a Judge (or Anyone Else) that stood in your way?"
It's a matter of evidence. Even if you manage to disappear the judge, there's a disappeared judge and someone's going to start looking for him or her. The argument for legal abortion isn't that it's not right or not life, it's that it's not disruptive.
On the abortion issue I used to be left of center and then just right of center. There's no right to abortion in the constitution. It is a decision to be made at the state and legislature level. However I always supported a right to abortion (in the early weeks of the pregnancy) as a private decision. The push by the left to make abortion legal to the due date and the Planned Parenthood use of body parts for profit lost me to the pro choice side.
The left's current antics as well as their multistage unhinged violence agaisnt the nation since at least 2016 clearly show that they are bullies and terrorists. There is no reasoning they respect and they are never satisfied with their incremental abuse of power over those they disagree with.
They simply disgust me. They have made it clear they see me as their enemy. I am what my state political lobbyists consider a "super voter". Hell will freeze over before I; a woman, mother, wife, daughter, sister, hispanic, American citizen; will vote Democrat ever again. But I will vote.
From the post:
"If abortion is just a cause for a battle of wills — if there is violence or the threat of violence — the fact that what is demanded is an entitlement to commit violence against the unborn might draw those who have been so conflicted to the anti-abortion side."
Maybe not to the'anti- abortion side,' but to the anti-radical side, as part of the larger picture. I also reiterate my claim that the pro-abortion movement is and always has been about population control, and reproductive choice has been a cover for the underlying motive. So also climate change, equity, inclusion in all its various forms, etc. It's all about the will to power.
This must have polled badly. But still no condemnation from your President. So, he's OK with it.
"If abortion is just a cause for a battle of wills — if there is violence or the threat of violence — the fact that what is demanded is an entitlement to commit violence against the unborn might draw those who have been so conflicted to the anti-abortion side."
You mean the "pro-life" side?
I'd put it differently:
These threats and acts of violence will reinforce the thought that the pro-abortion side is all about violence (abortion is the killing of another human, after all), and the pro-life side is not
What's that? 3 whole people have been killed by the pro-life side over the last 50 years?
BLM killed, what, 70 of the course of one summer? Far more than 3 of them "black lives"?
may make it harder for them — for us — to take refuge in the intellectualized principle of personal autonomy that makes it possible to understand abortion as an individual right.
"Personal autonomy"? You mean like "if you want to keep your health care job, you must get the jab"?
Like "if you want to go out in public, you must get the jab and carry papers to provided your private health care information to prove that you got it"?
I'm sorry, but if anyone ever believed that the Democrats respect a "principle of personal autonomy", that belief was killed over the last year.
The three "justices" firmly on the side of Roe voted to support everything single State and Federal attack on the principle of personal autonomy when it came to Covid.
I'm sorry, but your side threw that away, and can not have it back
wishfulthinking @ 9:20: Word.
They have made it clear they see me as their enemy.
It used to be said: "Conservatives think Liberals are stupid. Liberals think Conservatives are evil."
Stupid you can try to reason with. Evil you can't.
.
Laslo's comment and Tom's follow up are why I keep coming back to this blog.
.
" I said it was possible to UNDERSTAND it as a right."
I'm sure the 1860's era southern plantation owner understood it as a right that some people (them) could own other people (not them). That understanding did not interfere with efforts to remove that "right" and free those held in bondage. If a right doesn't really exist, you can't actually take it away.
Personal autonomy, dignity, and agency as in four choices, and a right to self-defense through reconciliation.
Imagine there is no wicked solution
It's easy if you try
No abortion chambers
In front of us only time
Imagine all the babies
Living for today
Thanks, Owen
It was not a "clarification."
It was a change of course, as a means of damage control.
to the anti-abortion side
Since it's now 'anti-abortion' instead of pro-life, can we start referring to the other side as anti-life? Pro-death?
Words matter, and it's way past time we stop letting one side dictate the terms of the debate.
So, bottom line: Don't use violence against adults who are against abortion because this will inhibit your ability to kill the pre-born should you decide to. Is there any other reason not to use violence against this type of adult? If violence against contrary or even just conflicted adults actually helped because it intimidated them and made them passive, would that make it ok? Maybe it's just a matter of using more violence, not less. In the end, I really don't see how purely pragmatic reasoning is going to save any of us once you can rationalize intentionally killing someone in the womb. But maybe I am being simplistic.
All statism is based on violence, or the threat of violence.
I disagree with protesting in neighborhoods where as person lives. That can leading to shooting incidents. In the past of human history, rioters have smashed windows, invaded houses and pulled out residents to the violence of the mob.
I will say that this issue is a political one. So when the judges decide to revoke a perceived right to abortion, political unrest is to be expected.This does not mean is a correct to march in a neighborhood street.
One of commenters said since abortion is murder of the child conceived , then there is no moral difference to murder of an adult judge.If a person is willing to kill their own child in the womb,they have the character to kill an adult.
Yet they won't, because they will be prosecuted. So that brings us to the logical conclusion if abortion is murder, then it is logical to prosecute the mother as Louisiana trigger law does.
So it is a good idea that Va and Md arrest and prosecute protesters for charges of intimidation of Judges.That may deter others from the same tactic.
Post a Comment