Report: Democrats remove “woman” from 2022 Women’s Health Protection Act in an effort to codify abortion

Share:

WASHINGTON, D.C.– According to a report from the Washington Examiner, Democrats in the Senate are taking the fight over Roe v. Wade and abortion in an effort to codify the 2022 Women’s Health Protection Act.

The Act allegedly omits the word “woman” from the body of the legislation as those in with the far-left claim the leaked Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) draft opinion threatens “anyone with a uterus.” Allegedly, the word “women” is included in the title but not in the text of the bill.

Shortly after the leaked SCOTUS opinion surfaced, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer asserted that the upper chamber would take a vote to codify abortion rights. He said in a statement:

“I want to make three things clear. First, now that the court is poised to strike down Roe, it is my intention for the Senate to hold a vote on legislation to codify the right to an abortion in law.

Second, a vote on this legislation is not an abstract exercise — this is as urgent and real as it gets. We will vote to protect a woman’s right to choose and every American is going to see which side every senator stands.”

He added:

“Third, to the American people, I say this: The elections this November will have consequences because the rights of 100 million women are now on the ballot to help fight this court’s awful decision. I urge every American to make their voices heard this week and this year.”

President Joe Biden previously vowed he would urge Congress to federally legalize abortion nationwide in the event that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

According to reports, the 2021 Women’s Health Protection Act would take Roe even further. It allegedly includes radical provisions on gender including the assertion that biological women who identify as transgender men can also become pregnant. The legislation says, in part:

“The terms ‘woman’ and ‘women’ are used in this bill to reflect the identity of the majority if people targeted and affected by restrictions on abortion services and to address squarely the targeted restrictions on abortion, which are rooted in misogyny”

The legislation contends:

“However, access to abortion services is critical to the health of every person capable of becoming pregnant. This Act is intended to protect all people with the capacity for pregnancy – cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others – who are unjustly harmed by restrictions on abortion services.”

https://fundourpolice.com/

The 2021 bill also allegedly refers to “reproductive justice,” calling it a fight against “white supremacy.”

According to the report by the Washington Examiner, the latest version of the Act has removed the radical “roots” of the legislation. However, it does not contain the word “woman” in its context. The writer of the Examiner report, Byron York, wrote:

“That stuff about reproductive justice? It’s gone. About BIPOC? It’s gone, too. Nonbinary people? Gone. White supremacy? Nowhere to be found. Now that Democrats know the public will be watching, thanks to the Supreme Court leak, they don’t want people to see what they really think about abortion.”

He added:

“One notable aspect of the 2021 bill has made it into the 2022 bill. Even though it is known as the ‘Women’s Health Protection Act,’ the title is the only place in the entire 2022 bill where the word ‘women’ or ‘woman’ appears. Instead, the 2022 bill is designed to cover any ‘person’ who is pregnant.”

MSNBC political analyst Juanita Tolliver declared on “MTP Daily” that Republicans are attempting to deny women and “anyone with a uterus” the right to an abortion. She said:

“This is not going to stop, especially when the right and Republicans have dedicated decades to taking this basic right away from women and anyone with a uterus.”

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Report: Several Supreme Court Justices moved to undisclosed locations after protesters march in front of their homes

May 8th, 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C.- Within five days of a leaked draft opinion from the United States Supreme Court that suggested the court is poised to overturn the landmark case Roe v. Wade, a number of the justices have had to relocate to undisclosed locations.

According to reports, nearly 100 protestors bearing signs and chanting slogans marched from Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in Chevy Chase, Maryland to Chief Justice John Robert’s house about a half mile away.

The leaked draft opinion, which was first published by Politico, states that Kavanaugh was one of five justices that allegedly cast preliminary votes to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

CNN later reported that Roberts opposed overturning Roe completely and was trying to forge a compromise that would leave parts of the ruling intact while upholding a Mississippi law that limits abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy.

According to a report from Breitbart News, Justice Samuel Alito has also been moved to an undisclosed location for safety, given the additional opposition he is facing as the writer of the leaked majority opinion. The report said:

“Militant leftists, including a group called Ruth Sent Us, are trying to physically intimidate the five justices who are expected to sign the final version of Alito’s leaked opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overruling Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, with the four other justices being Clarence Thomas – appointed by Bush 41 – and the three justices appointed by Donald Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.”

The report added:

“While doxing the justices’ home addresses is ostensibly so protestors can go to those justices’ homes to protest – which many Americans consider objectionable by itself, and in fact which violates federal law at 18 U.S.C. § 1507 – many others also note this could lead to violence, if an activist were to attack a justice or the justice’s family.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin of Illinois, a Democrat, criticized protests at the home of justices and other public officials as “demeaning and adolescent.”

Tow other Judiciary Committee members, Republican John Cornyn of Texas and Democrat Chris Coons of Delaware, introduced a bill that would extend security protection to the justices’ families. Cornyn said in a statement:

“The events of the past week have intensified the focus on Supreme Court justices’ families, who are unfortunately facing threats to their safety in today’s increasingly polarized political climate.”

https://fundourpolice.com/

Roberts, who has ordered an investigation of the leak, called the leak “absolutely appalling” and said that the person responsible would be “foolish” to think it would affect the court’s deliberations. Breitbart News stated:

“There is a difference between free speech to express opposition and trying to physically intimidate a judge to change his court decision out of fear for his or her family’s safety. President Joe Biden and his White House have still not condemned this crossing of that important line.”

On Thursday, May 5th, White House press secretary Jen Psaki declined to criticize the practice of protesting outside a justice’s home. She said in a statement:

“I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest. We want it, of course, to be peaceful.”

According to reports, the justices are scheduled to rule in the case of overturning Roe v. Wade by July.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

‘Endangers our children’: Senator raises concerns about Biden Supreme Court pick being soft on child sex offenders

March 20th, 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C. – As confirmation hearings are set to begin shortly for Biden Supreme Court pick and radical leftist Ketanji Brown Jackson, one Senator has raised the alarm on Jackson’s apparent history of being soft on child sex and pornography offenders.

In an 18-part Twitter thread, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) recently introduced multiple concerns regarding Judge Jackson’s attitudes and actions toward child sex offenders and pedophiles.

Hawley began:

“I’ve been researching the record of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, reading her opinions, articles, interviews & speeches. I’ve noticed an alarming pattern when it comes to Judge Jackson’s treatment of sex offenders, especially those preying on children.”

Hawley continued:

“Judge Jackson has a pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes, both as a judge and as a policymaker.

“She’s been advocating for it since law school.

“This goes beyond ‘soft on crime.’ I’m concerned that this a record that endangers our children.”

Hawley went on to describe a longtime approach from Jackson, dating back to law school, that appeared to exhibit a soft touch with child sex offenders.

He wrote:

“As far back as her time in law school, Judge Jackson has questioned making convicts register as sex offenders – saying it leads to ‘stigmatization and ostracism.’

“She’s suggested public policy is driven by a ‘climate of fear, hatred & revenge’ against sex offenders.”

Hawley also reported that Jackson “questioned sending dangerous sex offenders to civil commitment.”

In addition, Hawley raised concerns that Jackson, as part of the U.S. Sentencing Commission,  called for “drastic change in how the law treats sex offenders by eliminating the existing mandatory minimum sentences for child porn.”

Hawley then referenced some of Jackson’s past words, quoting her as saying:

“So the people who are in this [child pornography] for either the collection, or the people who are loners and find status in their participation in the community, but would be categorized as non sexually motivated, how many are we talking about?”

Regarding these words, Hawley asked:

“What community would that be?  The community of child exploiters?”

Hawley also gleaned from Jackson’s words a question on a “less-serious child pornography offender,” apparently motivated by “technology.”

Jackson reportedly stated:

“And I’m wondering whether you could say that there is a – that there could be a less-serious child pornography offender who is engaging in the type of conduct in the group experience level because their motivation is the challenge, or to use the technology?

“They’re very sophisticated technologically, but they aren’t necessarily that interested in the child pornography piece of it?”

Hawley went on to summarize several cases of Jackson’s in which she appeared to be lenient with child pornographers and child sex offenders.

https://fundourpolice.com/

For instance, he wrote:

“In the case of United States v. Hawkins, the sex offender had multiple images of child porn. He was over 18.

“The Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentence of up to 10 years. Judge Jackson sentenced the perpetrator to only 3 months in prison.

“Three months.”

Also for example:

“In United States v. Stewart, the criminal possessed thousands of images of child porn and also hoped to travel across state lines to abuse a 9-year-old girl.

“The Guidelines called for a sentence of 97-121 months.

“Judge Jackson sentenced the criminal to just 57 months.”

Hawley also wrote:

“In United States v. Chazin, the offender had 48 files of child porn, which he had accessed over a period of years.

“The Guidelines recommended 78-97 months.

“Judge Jackson gave him 28.”

Hawley then opined:

“This is a disturbing record for any judge, but especially one nominated to the highest court in the land.

“Protecting the most vulnerable shouldn’t be up for debate.

“Sending child predators to jail shouldn’t be controversial.”

Hawley’s concerns over Jackson’s attitudes and actions toward child predators will likely be front and center in his upcoming questioning of Biden’s Supreme Court nominee.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

‘She believes the Constitution is racist’: Editor says Biden Supreme Court nominee’s radical ideology should disqualify her

Originally published March 19, 2022

The following includes editorial content which is the opinion of the writer. 

WASHINGTON, DC- Joe Biden boxed himself into a corner when he decided that his first nomination for a vacant Supreme Court opening had to be a woman and she had to be black.

That certainly eliminated a plethora of overwhelmingly qualified candidates.

Still, there were a number of qualified jurists who fit the bill. Yet, Biden decided to pick probably one of the most radical possible choices for the seat of retiring Associate Justice Stephen Breyer.

According to a piece in Breitbart, Joel Pollak, Senior Editor at Large paints a disturbing picture of Ketanji Brown Jackson, whom Biden has put forth for the Supreme Court.

She apparently is a proponent of Critical Race Theory, admires the Black Lives Matter movement, and has touted the bogus “1619 Project.” All of this, Pollak proposes, should disqualify her from serving on the United States Supreme Court.

Pollak noted that Jackson’s sentiments about these radical beliefs and ideologies were discovered during a recently discovered lecture she delivered at the University of Michigan Law School.

These were not the sentiments, he wrote, of a young student but rather were delivered while she sat as a federal judge in 2020, who would be confirmed a year later to the D.C. U.S. Court of Appeals.

For reasons which are unknown, all of this somehow escaped scrutiny during Jackson’s previous confirmation hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

However it is one thing to sit as a district judge and perhaps an appeals judge. It is an entirely different matter for a Supreme Court justice to admire philosophies which run counter to the foundation of our republic, since part of their responsibility is to uphold our founding documents, including the Constitution.

Hopefully, and it seems that it is so, Republicans are paying close attention to Jackson’s radical beliefs, which paint her as likely the most radical judge ever appointed to the nation’s high court.

Pollak notes the sheer irony in Jackson’s selection as a SCOTUS nominee, due to Biden’s declaration his nominee was being put forth solely based on their gender and the amount of melanin in their skin, which he notes invokes “the kind of discrimination that the Supreme Court itself has said is unconstitutional.”

Moreover, there are pending cases due to come before the high court that Jackson would hear as a justice, which makes her views on these topics overwhelmingly important.

And the fact that Jackson admires the 1619 Project raises a number of alarm bells, since the author of that garbage, Nikole Hannah Jones, proposes that the United States was founded upon racism and slavery and is therefore a systemically racist country. That fact alone should disqualify Jackson.

The title of her University of Michigan lecture was “Black Women Leaders in the Civil Rights Movement Era and Beyond.” There is certainly not, as Pollak notes, anything controversial inherent in that title; it was clearly an acceptable topic.

Jackson’s remarks, which were delivered in observance of Martin Luther King Day were generally that black women have served on the front lines in the fight for equal rights in the United States, which would hopefully direct the country to adhere to our founding principles. She noted that due to those women, America became a freer country for everyone. Sounds good, right?

Unfortunately, Jackson went off the rails when she claimed that Critical Race Theory and its founder, Derrick Bell were a “source of inspiration,” Pollak wrote.

Bell proposed that America is a fundamentally racist country, with that racism being part and parcel of all of our institutions, claiming that because slavery was prevalent when the Constitution was written, it was therefore acceptable in the founding of our country to engage in racism. Which of course, makes no sense.

Bell posited that only through the redistribution of wealth…aka socialism…could our country be saved from so-called “systemic racism.”

Jackson cited Bell’s book, Faces at the Bottom of the Well, which she said was “omnipresent” in her home when she was growing up, a book which posited that “America is so racist that we would sell our black citizens to space aliens for gold to pay off our national debt.” Tremendous role model right there.

Then there is the Hannah-Jones program of fiction, the 1619 Project.  In the opening essay published in the New York Times magazine, Hannah-Jones made the absurd, ridiculous, and easily debunked claim that the American Revolution was fought to preserve slavery.

Therefore in her mind, slavery was the “founding principle” of the United States. An overwhelming number of historians have dismissed Hannah-Jones’s claims as fantasy.

Then there is her admiration for Black Lives Matter, an organization that has been marred by allegations of financial malfeasance and whose founder, Patrisse Cullors has somehow been able to leverage into a significant real estate empire.

Jackson said in the lecture that her “favorite civil rights photograph of modern times” was a picture of a BLM protester being arrested by Baton Rouge, Louisiana police at a 2016 march protesting police shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile.

It apparently didn’t enter into the equation that both of those men were shot while armed. And of course, we don’t have to address the violence BLM fomented in 2020 after George Floyd’s overdose death in Minneapolis.

All of this raises concern about Jackson’s judgment and what her judicial philosophy would be if she was elevated to the Supreme Court. As Pollak notes, “we cannot have a Justice who believes the Constitution is racist; who believes America was founded on slavery; or who believes police are guilty until proven innocent.”

About the only thing that can be said is as the court is currently constructed, a potential Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would be in the minority—for now.

There are important questions that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee need to ask Jackson, although it is pretty much a given that Democrats’ questions will be typical hanging curveballs. That’s why it is important for the Republicans on the committee to ask her tough questions and not worry about being labeled as “racist” for simply asking questions that it is important to know the answers to.

“Does she share Derrick Bell’s view that the Constitution is racist? Does she share the 1619 Project’s view on the American Revolution? Does she believe the officers who shot Sterling and Castile are guilty of murder? And—crucially—does she believe the race and gender criteria of her own nomination are acceptable?” Pollak asks.

All of these are important questions.

Also, Jackson’s comments…only two years old…are certainly pertinent to her nomination. Breitbart cites the case of a Trump nominee, Ryan Bounds, who was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2017.

In that case, two Republicans—Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Tim Scott (R-SC)—slammed Bounds for writings he authored…as a college student…twenty years prior. The essays mocked identity politics and political correctness, yet were characterized as “racist.”

While Bounds apologized for his writings as a young college student, his nomination went down in flames.

However, as Pollak notes, nothing Bounds wrote comes anywhere near the “racial extremism” of Jackson’s role models.

Racial extremism goes both ways, or at least it should. We agree with Pollak.

“If a Republican nominee had to withdraw because of skepticism of racial politics as a student, a Democratic nominee with radical racial views in the present day should not be on the Supreme Court.” [emphasis added]

Report: Democrats remove "woman" from 2022 Women's Health Protection Act in an effort to codify abortion

For our prior article on the threat Judge Jackson poses to the Second Amendment, we invite you to:

DIG DEEPER

By Larry Keane and our friends at NSSF

President Joe Biden’s nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer gives him his first chance to put a lasting stamp on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Jackson, who was only recently elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has authored just two opinions on the merits, both in the past month. Her judicial record tells us truly little about her views on the Second Amendment or about the firearm industry.

Unlike Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who openly told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that her family is a gun-owning family and openly advocated for originalism on the court, Judge Jackson doesn’t offer similar insights.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented on a D.C. Court of Appeals decision to uphold a ban on most semiautomatic firearms and a firearm registration requirement in Washington, D.C. Justice Neil Gorsuch, an outdoorsman and hunter, was introduced as an originalist jurist and “very much in the mold” of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Her Record

Judge Jackson would undeniably be paving a new path if she is confirmed. She would be the first African-American woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

When it comes to gun rights, her judicial experience and philosophy are less obvious. Judge Jackson could be expected to be in the ideological mold of the justice she is to replace, Justice Breyer for whom she clerked from 1999-2000.

When it comes to firearms and gun rights, Justice Breyer was certainly no ally of gun rights.

Justice Breyer dissented on Heller and MacDonald, and holds views that are hostile to individual Second Amendment rights. Justice Breyer once claimed the Founding Fathers intended for government to strictly regulate firearms, though no legislative evidence shows this.

In fact, the first gun control laws were openly racist and intended to deny guns to slaves. The Atlantic, a liberal news publication, pointed out that in 1640, Virginia had laws on the books preventing Blacks from owning guns. In 1712, a law for a total ban on Black gun ownership was enacted to prevent slave revolts.

Slave Codes were renamed Black Codes during the post-Civil War reconstruction era and those were racist laws designed to suppress recently freed Blacks.

Still, Judge Jackson’s judicial record affords no direct insights into how she might rule on Second Amendment-related or firearm industry-related cases. An opinion she authored in her eight months on the D.C. Court of Appeals was published just one day before her nomination.

That case related to unions and the federal government. The closest case that Judge Jackson related to firearms was Baisden v. Barr, in which she dismissed the complaint of a convicted felon petitioning to reclaim gun rights.

The plaintiff offered no evidence that he ever owned a firearm, obtained a permit, ever used, intended to use, or expressed a desire to possess a firearm prior to his conviction.

Her Philosophy

U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton directly asked Judge Jackson about the Second Amendment when she was nominated to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Her answer was similar to Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who both stated that they would be bound by Heller’s precedent. Little more was said.

Gun rights advocates would disagree that both Justices Kagan and Sotomayor respect individual gun rights, especially after hearing their questions to the pending New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett hearing.

Justice Kagan posed the question of whether Heller put a “stamp of approval” on certain gun control measures. Justice Sotomayor said she couldn’t “get past all that history” of gun regulations.

While Justice Barrett openly embraced her ideas on originalism and how that informs her judicial philosophy, Judge Jackson has been ambiguous on her answers of a “living Constitution” approach.

Professor Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, wrote in The Hill that Judge Jackson told the courts she didn’t believe in the concept when nominated to the district court.

Later, when she was nominated to the appellate court, she told the Senate she didn’t have the experience to make such interpretations as a judge.

Professor Turley was baffled by that response since it wasn’t a question of her signed opinions but her judicial opinion on how the Constitution should be interpreted. Judge Jackson has been overruled for judicial overreach.

There’s proof she’s willing to engage in legislating from the bench when faced with questions she doesn’t like.

Her Critics

When President Biden nominated her last year to the Court of Appeals, the National Review wrote that Judge Jackson is, “not highly regarded as a judge” and was, “considered to have a middling reputation.”

The article added that Judge Jackson has, “a striking record of reversals by the [Court of Appeals for the] D.C. Circuit—including by liberal judges—in her high-profile rulings.”

Professor Turley noted that as a district court judge she was reversed in 2018 by a unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a federal workers’ collective bargaining case based on lack of jurisdiction and again overruled in an immigration case in 2019 for judicial overreach.

Carrie Severino, President of Judicial Crisis Network, wrote for Fox News that Judge Jackson would be little more than a politician in robes for liberal special-interest causes. She said Judge Jackson’s nomination is, “paying back the liberal Arabella Advisors dark money network” that was instrumental in President Biden’s campaign.

“Since it comports with a strategy of moderate rhetoric/radical substance, expect to hear little from Biden and his supporters about Judge Jackson’s past advocacy for terrorists, softness on crime, upholding racial preferences, hostility toward pro-lifers, and reversed decisions involving Trump-era policies.”

There’s nothing to indicate that Judge Jackson will strictly interpret the Constitution. She will be what President Biden wants – a secure replacement for Justice Breyer. When it comes to gun rights and the industry, that’s what America can expect. Judge Jackson will be a solid vote against the Second Amendment and the firearm industry.

There’s just one other thing that won’t change. Should Judge Jackson be confirmed, the composition of the Supreme Court remains the same, currently a 6-3 conservative majority.

____________________

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Share:
Submit a Correction
Related Posts