‘Your terms are acceptable’: Days after SCOTUS reverses Roe v. Wade, activist women call for “sex strike” against men

Share:

UNITED STATES – On Friday, June 24th, the United States Supreme Court officially reversed Roe v. Wade.

Since the announcement of this ruling, pro-choice advocates across the country have been protesting and now, according to Breitbart News, some women are even calling for a “nationwide sex strike” in retaliation against men for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Outraged activist women took to the streets and to social media, declaring that women should begin to practice abstinence, including one Twitter user who believes that women should even withhold sex from their husbands.

One Twitter user tweeted:

“Women, if you are having a tough time with the #sexStrike and #abstinence just picture Mitch McConnel naked.”

The photo attached to the tweet said:

“WOMEN OF AMERICA: TAKE THE PLEDGE !!! Because SCOTUS overturned Roe V. Wade, we cannot take the risk of an unintended pregnancy, therefore, we will not have sex with any man – including our husbands – unless we are trying to become pregnant.”

A 24-year-old woman protesting in New York City told the New York Post that she would not have sex with men if they are not willing to get a vasectomy. The woman stated:

“If you’re a man who won’t get a vasectomy, even though it’s reversible, and you’re not out in the streets fighting for my rights, you do not deserve to have sex with me.”

Caroline Healey, a 22-year-old event coordinator, also questioned why sex was more important than “women’s rights”. She said in a statement:

“I think it’s absolutely valid for us to be withholding the Holy Grail that men seem to think is important. Why shouldn’t we withhold it if we’re always worried that they’re not going to put a condom on, that they’re going to take off after we ask them to.”

She added:

“If we can’t safely go out and have sex and know that we will have a choice after that, they why should we be expected to?”

https://fundourpolice.com/

Other Twitter users joined in on the rally to call to abstain from sex with men. Monique Pressley, a legal analyst and political commentator, according to her bio, tweeted:

“Perhaps a #sexstrike (also know as abstinence) would help the men folk to be all in on this #womensright issue. #RoevWade.”

Another user tweeted:

“If you’re celebrating the overturn of RoeVWade, disrespectfully, go (expletive) yourself. No literally. #SEXSTRIKE Don’t (expletive) your husbands, don’t (expletive) your boyfriends, don’t (expletive) that random from that one app. NO SEX WITH SPERM DONORS UNTIL WE HAVE OUR RIGHTS.”

Conservatives on social media responded to pro-choice women by pointing out that calling for a sex strike might not be the “slam dunk” they think it is. Olivia Rondeau tweeted:

“Leftists be like “FINE!” No abortions, we’ll just practice ABSTINENCE!! Take that, religious conservatives!!!”

Jack Posobiec, Senior Editor at Human Events, was pleased that “abstinence” was trending on Twitter. He tweeted:

“Great! Abstinence trends on Twitter in wake of Roe v. Wade ruling.”

Conservative author Rod Dreher also poked fun at the idea of women going on a sex strike. He tweeted:

“Your terms are acceptable, madam.”

Meanwhile, Maya Demri, a survivor of rape, insisted that women need to “do everything in their legal power to get our rights back.” She added:

“I cannot sit here and imagine what my sisters in red states are going to do if they’re getting pregnant by rape and need to not just carry the tragedy of the worst thing that has happened to them, but also carry them in the body for nine months.”

The New York Post reported on Saturday, June 25th, that the term “abstinence” was trending on Twitter following the decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

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

U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of sheriff’s deputy, rejects criminals suing cops for Miranda violations

June 24th, 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C.- According to Fox News, on Thursday, June 23rd, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that receiving Miranda warnings is not itself a right, but a protection of rights, thereby ruling out suing police for “Miranda violations.”

The Miranda warnings, which include telling a suspect that they have a right to remain silent, are customarily recited upon arrest or before statements are given. The warnings come from the Supreme Court case Miranda v. Arizona. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the Court’s opinion:

“Miranda itself was clear on this point. Miranda did not hold that a violation of the rules it established necessarily constitute a Fifth Amendment violation, and it is difficult to see how it could have held otherwise. Instead, it claimed only that those rules were needed to safeguard that right during custodial interrogation.”

In its decision, the Supreme Court sided with a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff who had appealed a lower court decision reviving a lawsuit by a hospital employee named Terence Tekoh who accused the deputy of violating this rights under the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

Tekoh was charged withs sexually assaulting a hospital patient after the deputy obtained a written confession from him without first informing the suspect of his rights through the Miranda warning.

Tekoh, who was a nursing assistant at a hospital, was acquitted at trial.

That statement was later admitted as evidence against him at trial and even though he was still found not guilty, Tekoh still brought a §1983 civil rights claim against Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Carlos Vega for allegedly violating his constitutional rights by not reading him his rights before the confession.

Alito cited several post-Miranda cases to back up his assertion that Miranda warnings are not themselves a constitutional right, but a “prophylactic” measure to protect a constitutional right.

The Court did note that Tekoh could still argue that Miranda rules are “federal law” and thus could be grounds for a lawsuit. The opinion added:

“But whatever else may be said about this argument, it cannot succeed unless Tekoh can persuade us that this ‘law’ should be expanded to include the right to sue for damages under §1983.”

https://fundourpolice.com/

After being acquitted, Tekoh sued Vega in federal court, accusing the officer of violating his Fifth Amendment rights. The jury reached a verdict in favor of Vega, but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a new trial on the officer’s liability.

The 9th Circuit found that using a statement taken without a Miranda warning against a defendant in a criminal trial violates the Fifth Amendment, giving rise to a claim for monetary damages against the officer who obtained the statement.

Appealing to the Supreme Court, Vega’s attorney’s said in a legal filing that the 9th Circuit’s decision threatened to “saddle police departments nationwide with extraordinary burdens in connection with lawful and appropriate investigative work.”

The lawyers added that “virtually any police interaction with a criminal suspect” might lead to liability for officers.

Alito argued that allowing such a claim would be problematic as it would result in having a federal court “adjudicate a factual question (whether Tekoh was in custody when questioned) that had already been decided by a state court.”

Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissenting opinion in which she was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, argued that Miranda did establish a constitutional rule that conferred a right and that therefore failing to provide Miranda warnings violates that right.

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

California man arrested near Kavanaugh’s home came to kill ‘specific United States Supreme Court justice’

June 8th, 2022

CHEVY CHASE, MD – An armed California man was arrested near the Maryland home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh early Wednesday morning, according to law enforcement sources.

Nicholas John Roske, who was carrying a gun and a knife as well as burglary tools when arrested, was reportedly angry about the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion expected to overturn Roe v. Wade and had made violent threats against Kavanaugh, Fox News said.

The suspect was identified in an unsealed arrest affidavit as Nicholas John Roske. Online records show a Nicholas Roske, 26, living in Simi Valley, California.

According to a criminal complaint:

“[Roske is accused of] attempts to kidnap or murder, or threatens to assault, kidnap or murder a United States Judge, to wit: a current Justice of the United States Supreme Court.”

At 1:05 a.m., June 8, 2022, two United States Deputy Marshals saw “an individual dressed in black clothing and carrying a backpack and a suitcase.”

Roske is accused of saying that he was “thinking about how to give his life a purpose and decided that he would kill the Supreme Court Justice after finding the Justice’s Montgomery County address on the Internet.”

The affidavit charges that Roske was in a taxi that stopped in front of Kavanaugh’s residence. The suspect looked at two deputy U.S. Marshals who were standing next to their parked vehicle and then turned to walk down the street.

Shortly thereafter, a man who said he was Nicholas John Roske called the Montgomery County Emergency Communications Center and said he was “having suicidal thoughts and had a firearm in his suitcase.”

He told the 911 operator that he came from California to “kill a specific United States Supreme Court justice,” according to the documents.

That is when authorities responded and arrested Roske. The affidavit states:

“[Roske] further indicated that he had purchased the Glock pistol and other items for the purpose of breaking into the justice’s residence and killing the Justice as well as himself.”

U.S. Marshals and the Montgomery County Police Department are handling the investigation.

 

Patricia McCabe, a spokeswoman for the Supreme Court, offered the media a few details in a statement. She said:

“At approximately 1:50 a.m. today, a man was arrested near Justice Kavanaugh’s residence.

“The man was armed and made threats against Justice Kavanaugh. He was transported to Montgomery County Police 2nd District.”

 

The suspect was taken to a local police station after he was arrested at about 1:50 a.m., McCabe said.

In a statement, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said President Biden “condemns the actions of this individual in the strongest terms” and that he’s grateful to law enforcement for quickly apprehending the suspect.

Bates continued:

“As the President has consistently made clear, public officials—including judges—must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety or that of their families.” 

Biden left the White House on Wednesday morning without taking questions from reporters about the threat on Kavanaugh’s life.

The arrest came hours before the Supreme Court announced Wednesday that it has not made its ruling in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The lack of a ruling prolongs the wait for an opinion that is expected to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.

In May, a storm was ignited when Politico reported that the SCOTUS had drafted an opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh, who was nominated to the high court by President Donald Trump, had joined with Justice Samuel Alito in voting to strike down Roe, according to the opinion.

The opinion could be publicly released by the end of June, when the court’s session is scheduled to end.

Protests formed across the country in the days after the draft was leaked, including in New York and in Washington, D.C. — and outside the homes of some Supreme Court justices.

A large crowd of pro-abortion demonstrators also gathered outside the Supreme Court building the day after the leak and were met by pro-life demonstrators who support the decision being overturned.

In the aftermath of the demonstrations, the Department of Justice said that the U.S. Marshals Service would be “providing additional support to the Marshal of the Supreme Court and Supreme Court Police” to ensure the justices’ safety.

The anticipated ruling prompted the Department of Homeland Security to issue an updated bulletin Tuesday warning of a “heightened threat environment” over the next several months. The DHS said it is monitoring risks from both  domestic terrorism and foreign adversaries sowing further U.S. societal division and inspiring violence.

The DHS cited other recent major events, including mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York, for the heightened concern but reiterated that individuals both for and against abortion have advocated for violence against  government, religious and reproductive health care personnel and facilities in response to the high-profile U.S. Supreme Court case.

https://fundourpolice.com/

Unhinged leftist Roe v. Wade protesters result in US Marshals providing security at Supreme Court Justices’ homes

May 19, 2022

The following contains editorial content which is the opinion of the author, a current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.

WASHINGTON, DC – Remember the time unhinged right-wing extremists got hacked off, threatened Supreme Court justices, and doxed their home addresses after they approved gay marriage? Neither do we.

What we will always remember however is how unhinged radical leftists threatened Supreme Court justices to the point where the US Marshals Service has been forced to provide 24/7 security at their homes.

According to the Washington Examiner, the Marshals have been requested by Attorney General Merrick Garland to provide security at the homes of conservative justices in light of recent deranged protests occurring throughout the country by angry liberals upset that they may ostensibly lose the right to murder unborn children.

Of course, if liberals had been paying attention in school about how the whole US Constitution thing works, they might realize that even if the high court strikes down Roe v. Wade, the pro-baby murder gang will still be able to get their abortions in states which permit it.

For example, women (sorry, don’t mean to “misgender”) who want to get an abortion in states such as for example California and New York will be able to do so right up until the child is ready to be born. It will change nothing.

“At the Attorney General’s direction, the U.S. Marshals service accelerated the provision of around-the-clock security at the homes of all Justices, among other actions, last week,” according to a Justice Department press readout.

After remaining silent for a couple of weeks over the impending decision and the sometimes violent protests which accompanied it, Garland last week spoke out (finally) against the “rise of violence and unlawful threats of violence” directed at public servants, saying they are “unacceptable and dangerous to our democracy.”

“I want to be clear. While people vote, argue, and debate in a democracy, we must not—we cannot—allow violence or unlawful threats of violence to permeate our national life. The Justice Department will not tolerate violence or threats of violence against judges or any other public servants at work, home, or any other location,” Garland added.

In addition, the Justice Department discussed plans to “enhance coordination, intelligence sharing, and technical support as it relates to judicial security” in the coming weeks and months following the unhinged protests earlier this month outside the homes of several conservative-leaning Supreme Court justices.

Prior to Garland’s order being released, a declassified memo from the Department of Homeland Security dated May 13 spoke to an “increase” in political violence if and when the Supreme Court returns a ruling similar to the draft opinion leaked May 2.

The memo, obtained by Axios led to some evasion from the Department of Homeland Security, which didn’t answer question about its veracity but told the Washington Examiner that it “is committed to protecting Americans’ freedom of speech and other civil rights and civil liberties, including the right to peacefully protest.”

In anticipation of possible violent protests at the Supreme Court building, fencing was erected to protect both the infrastructure as well as the justices.

It is expected that a final ruling in the case,  Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, is expected prior to the end of the court’s term in either late June or July.

https://fundourpolice.com/

For more on the pro-abortion zealots, we invite you to:

DIG DEEPER

WASHINGTON, DC- “Domestic terrorism as defined by the White House, from a June 2021 release:

“…activities that involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” [emphasis added]

With that in mind, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) wrote to the Department of Justice last week, asking why that agency has not labeled a violent attack on a Madison, Wisconsin anti-abortion center as “domestic terrorism.”

Last week, a group of pro-abortion zealots attacked the Wisconsin Family Action clinic in Madison with Molotov cocktails in response to an illegal leak of a draft opinion from the Supreme Court indicating the probable overturn of Roe v. Wade, the ill-advised and seemingly unconstitutional ruling which gives women a constitutional right to murder their unborn children.

On May 13, Johnson’s office issued a press release announcing Johnson’s letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas regarding collective silence on the attack in Madison.

In the attack, the pro-abortion group, Jane’s Revenge also painted a threat on the building, “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either.” That would seem to indicate an existential threat to that facility.

In his letter, Johnson took the agencies, along with Joe Biden to task, claiming none have made public remarks, nor have issued statements condemning the Madison attack.

“I want to reemphasize that your silence on this abhorrent attack against a pro-life organization is deafening and your continued silence could be construed as a tacit endorsement of such attacks against those who hold different or opposing political believes from those of this Administration,” he wrote.

Continuing, Johnson asked, “What actions are DOJ, FBI and DHS taking to assist state and local law enforcement regarding incidents of harassment, intimidation, and potential domestic threats against pro-life organizations?”

The Federalist reports that Jane’s Revenge, which claimed responsibility for the attack also issued a statement, in which they wrote:

“Wisconsin is the first flashpoint, but we are all over the US, and we will issue no further warnings.” They also further warned that “next time the infrastructure of the enslavers will not survive.”

In his letter, Johnson further admonished the violent protesters who engaged in sometimes violent and deadly protests in 2020.

“In 2020, extremists exploited demonstrations across the country to incite riots that resulted in the loss of life, more than 2,000 injuries to law enforcement officers, and over $1 billion in property damage,” Johnson wrote, citing International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) numbers.

“There are currently mobs outside the residences of the Supreme Court, Justices appointed by Presidents George W. bush and Donald Trump…and once again, DOJ, FBI, and DHS have yet to condemn these activities.”

Despite the fact that such protests are against federal law, and in the case of Virginia state law, the demonstrations have been endorsed by the White House.

“I know that there is an outrage right now about protests that have been peaceful to date,” outgoing White House flack Jen Psaki said in a press briefing last week. “We certainly continue to encourage that outside of judges’ homes.”

In his letter, Johnson gave Garland, Wray and Mayorkas until May 27 to respond to his letter while admonishing them for their silence, relating their silence to the targeting of parents at school board meetings last year with them being compared to domestic terrorists.

Johnson then outlined three requests:

  1. Has DHS or FBI designated the group, “Jane’s Revenge,” as a domestic violent extremist organization? IF not, please provide your reasoning.
  2. Will DOJ provide resources to identify and prosecute those responsible for the attack to the Madison Police Department?
  3. What actions are DOJ, FBI, and DHS taking to assist state and local law enforcement regarding incidents of harassment, intimidation, and potential domestic threats against pro-life organizations?

Senator Johnson probably shouldn’t hold his breath, given the radical nature of this administration.

 

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