ABC News Martha Raddatz confronts South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem about state abortion rules, limits and restrictions in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe and returning the legal decision surrounding abortion to the states.

Ms Raddatz is a pro-death advocate who decries any possibility that an unborn child, including an unborn female child, has a right to live.  Ms. Noem handled the combative interrogation with political aplomb.  WATCH: 

(more…)

Comrades, this is quite a remarkable interview if you stand back away from the issue and just look at the context.  Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer appears on CBS Face the Nation to discuss abortion in the aftermath of Supreme Court overturning Roe.  The legal aspects for any abortion restriction now return to the state legislature and representatives closest to the people.

Comrade Whitmer is repeatedly asked what she can do to keep abortion available without limit.  In her responses Whitmer notes that her opinion on the issue is not held by the state legislature and lawmakers, as a result there’s not much she can do.  Gretchen Whitmer is admitting her view is not the view of the people in her state, yet she vows to continue fighting against the will of the people.  WATCH:

[Transcript] –  …”GOV. WHITMER: What I’m trying to fight for is the status quo in Michigan and there are reasonable restrictions on that. With the current legislature that I have, there is no common ground, which is the sad thing.” (read more)

(more…)

Yesterday we noted one of the likely downstream consequences from the Supreme Court decision on Roe might be that increased federalism and state control over abortion laws would lead to national ‘red lining.’  Essentially, leftists would avoid red state abortion restrictions and self-isolate in deepening blue regions where abortion is more common and accessible.

Within hours of that prediction, Google Inc sent an internal memo to employees offering to pay relocation assistance for any worker who would want to leave an area where abortion is likely to be restricted.

VIA NBC –  Google sent a companywide email Friday about the historic Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, explaining employees in affected states can apply for relocation without explaining why.

“This is a profound change for the country that deeply effects so many of us, especially women,” wrote Google Chief People officer Fiona Cicconi in an email to workers, viewed by CNBC. “Googlers can also apply for relocation without justification, and those overseeing this process will be aware of the situation.”

(more…)

Ms. Harmeet Dhillon appears on the Tucker Carlson show to discuss the Supreme Court ruling that sends the issue of abortion back to the individual states for determinations of legal issue by the legislative bodies closest to the people.  {Direct Rumble Link}  Dhillon provides a clear-eyed and pragmatic review of the Roe -vs- Wade case nuance overall.  WATCH:

(more…)

The 213-page Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs -v- Jackson (Mississippi case) is FOUND HERE.  The ruling in the Dobbs case was 6-3 in favor of allowing Mississippi to place limits on abortion after 15 weeks.   However, in combination with the Dobbs decision the court has overturned (by a 5-4 vote) the 1972 Roe -vs- Wade decision that created a constitutional right to abortion.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the majority on the Dobbs decision (Mississippi) but said he did not agree with the decision to overturn Roe. The vote to overturn Roe was 5-4. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett joined Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion.

Due to an unprecedented leak in the Alito draft opinion in May, the Roe decision was anticipated.  The leaked draft opinion showed that a majority of the justices were privately poised to remove a constitutional right for abortion; today that step was taken.

SCOTUS BLOG – […] Alito began his 79-page opinion by observing that abortion “presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views.” But the Constitution does not refer to abortion at all, Alito stressed, and nothing in the Constitution implicitly protects the right to an abortion.

(more…)

In a 6-3 ruling [pdf HERE] the Supreme Court has ruled that New York state cannot require an individual to prove a “special need” in order to carry a firearm for self-protection.  The ruling, likely to have ramifications for other gun restricting states, affirms the constitutional right of an individual to carry a firearm, and blocks the efforts of states to make the individual prove they have a need for one.

Writing the majority decision Justice Clarence Thomas concluded there was no historical requirement that law-abiding citizens show the kind of special need for self-defense required by the New York law to carry a gun in public. Indeed, as Thomas wrote, there is “no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”  [Ruling Here]

SCOTUS BLOG – The state law at the heart of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen required anyone who wants to carry a concealed handgun outside the home to show “proper cause” for the license. New York courts interpreted that phrase to require applicants to show more than a general desire to protect themselves or their property. Instead, applicants must demonstrate a special need for self-defense – for example, a pattern of physical threats. Several other states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, impose similar restrictions, as do many cities. (read more)

Leftists, particularly those who have recently become drunk on power from their COVID dictates, are apoplectic about the supreme court limiting the power of government to control the constitutional rights of the individual.  It’s quite remarkable to watch the far-left lash out against the institution that has the role in our government to protect the constitution.

(more…)

A major win for parents and school choice today in a 6-3 decision from the Supreme Court [pdf Ruling Here].  The high court ruled that Maine violated the Constitution by refusing to make public funds available for students to attend faith-based schools.  The ruling is broad and makes it clear when any state and/or local government choose to subsidize private schools or provide vouchers for school choice, they must allow families pay for religious schools.

Teachers’ unions, left-wing indoctrination institutions and the media are not happy with the Supreme Court decision.  The ruling now makes it possible for state or local school vouchers to be used for private, faith-based schools.  Those schools also have religious exemptions on the types of material and educators they allow in their education programs.

In the bigger picture the court has again affirmed ‘freedom of religion‘ not ‘freedom from religion‘.  Parents who wish their children to receive a moral and virtuous education should not be blocked by state and local politicians who promote sexualization of children, immoral conduct and alternative lifestyles for kids.  SCOTUS BLOG has background details including the dissent:

SCOTUS BLOG: – […] The dispute before the court in Carson v. Makin began as a challenge to the system that Maine uses to provide a free public education to school-aged children. In some of the state’s rural and sparsely populated areas, school districts opt not to run their own secondary schools. Instead, they choose one of two options: sending students to other public or private schools that the district designates, or paying tuition at the public or private school that each student selects. But in the latter case, state law allows government funds to be used only at schools that are nonsectarian – that is, schools that do not provide religious instruction.

(more…)

Everything about this story is suspicious.  A California man travels all the way to Maryland only to be intercepted by unnamed police at 1:50am, and then admits he was intent on killing Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh because he was angry about the possibility of SCOTUS overturning Roe -v- Wade.  Uh huh.

The first indicator something is sketchy is the WaPo with the breaking news. The second indicator is Peter Strzoks BFF journalist Devlin Barrett with the story.  Assuming the U.S. Marshals office still holds some credibility, the Occam’ Razor of the sourcing would indicate it’s the FBI delivering the information to the Washington Post.

WASHINGTON – A California man carrying at least one weapon near Brett M. Kavanaugh’s Maryland home has been taken into custody by police after telling officers he wanted to kill the Supreme Court justice, according to people familiar with the investigation.

The man, described as being in his mid-20s, was found to be carrying at least one weapon and burglary tools, these people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. Police were apparently notified that the person might pose a threat to the justice, but it was not immediately clear who provided the initial tip, these people said. The man apparently did not make it onto Kavanaugh’s property in Montgomery County but was stopped on a nearby street, these people said.

(more…)

The recently demoted Chuck Todd, who’s daytime show is now only on stream, ponders the great curiosity for his sheltered audience about whether abortion will swing the 2022 election in favor of the communist, left-wing, collective agenda.

Chuck Todd doesn’t have any actual data to frame his fairy tales, but fortunately CNN did a poll a few days ago of the exact questions puzzling NBC.

CNN did an extensive poll on this question of young people voting – [pdf here]

CTH pulled all the poll data into one easier to read infographic of the responses by age (below).  The 18-to-34-year group are not single-issue voters.

31% of that age group say a candidate MUST agree with them on abortion, while 69% say abortion is only one of several factors or not much of a factor.

The 18–34-year group is also reasonably pragmatic. If Roe v Wade overturned, 21% say abortions likely to be banned where they live; 31% say likely harder but not banned; 26% say it wouldn’t make a difference; and 22% not sure what would happen where they live.

(more…)

Michigan was one of the most aggressive states to limit freedom and bodily autonomy during their COVID-19 mitigation effort.  The state governor and state attorney general decreed unilaterally the rules for Michigan citizens without representative voice, to include vaccine mandates.

Today, during responses to the possibility that national abortion laws will revert back to the states, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel now says, “politicians do not belong in our doctors’ offices,” and that if Roe v Wade is overturned by the Supreme Court, in Michigan “women are going to die.” WATCH: 

.

(more…)