Then, of course, there is this attack on US senatorial candidate Bill O’Brien from the New Hampshire Democrat National Committee and one Josh Marcus-Blank: “O’Brien Tries to Weaponize Roe.”
The accusation stems from O’Brien’s claim that abortion is not settled law. While it may be true that O’Brien’s challengers, like so many candidates, use the phrase “Abortion is settled law,” there still remain questions among some of the best jurists whether Roe v. Wade was a decision based upon social law or constitutional law.
Throughout the 47 years since the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has the constitutional right to abort her baby, politicians have walked the razor edge of trying to balance their personal and ethical persuasions with that of the Court.
One such candidate who is running against Bill O’Brien is Bryant “Corky” Messner who has stated he said he would not vote to approve a judge intent on overturning Roe v. Wade, believing the decision to be, in fact, settled law, which he calls a “legitimate precedent.” One would think Messner, a skilled lawyer himself would know that courts overturn precedents regularly.
Nonetheless, the NHDNC claims that any discussion of an opinion other than complete adoption of the “settled law” theory is an “attack” on the fictitious right to slaughter babies at will, both within the womb and without.
Josh Marcus-Blank has referenced O’Brien’s claim that abortion is like slavery and terrorism as a phony indicator that somehow O’Brien is racist. Ridiculous, and Blank knows it’s ludicrous. In fact, the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade has been likened to the Dread Scott decision, a ruling that said Mr. Scott had no standing before the US Supreme Court because he lacked personhood. If that sounds familiar, it is. It’s the same rationale used by the Courts to deny rights to unborn humans as persons under the law.
But is an abortion in any way like the terrorist attacks on 9/11? An argument can be made that if the unborn baby is a person in the womb, the abortionist’s secret act to kill it without warning is indeed similar to a terrorist attack. In fact, all terrorist attacks are similar to abortion in that they are the unannounced execution of innocent and vulnerable victims. The determinant is whether the unborn baby is a person and entitled to civil rights.
The same liberals who hide behind the “settled law” theory for abortion would not hesitate to charge a terrorist, or anyone else, who kills a pregnant woman with a double homicide. It’s the schizophrenia of abortion: We want to selectively designate the unborn baby as a person when it fits into our confused moral state. If the mother kills the unborn, it’s not a person; if a terrorist kills the mother and her unborn baby, it’s a double homicide.
Here’s a statement from Blank’s piece from NHDP spokesperson Holly Shulman, demonstrating the level of hysteria used to intimidate pro-life candidates and voters:
If Bill O’Brien had his way, abortion would be outlawed in New Hampshire and across the country, with zero exceptions…Ever since he tried to defund Planned Parenthood as Speaker of the New Hampshire House, O’Brien has become even more extreme on abortion policy, and in the Senate, he has vowed to stand with Ted Cruz in his efforts to overturn Roe. New Hampshire Democrats are never going to let that happen.“
According to Holly Shulman, the moral arbiter of thought in New Hampshire, if you’re pro-life and believe an unborn baby is a person in the fullest sense, you’re “extreme” and at odds with the sacrosanct views of the all-knowing, superior New Hampshire Democrats.
Roe v. Wade is not “settled law.” The US Constitution makes no reference to the unborn or a woman’s right to terminate the life of an unborn baby. Roe was the product of sociological law, precedent by statistical averages, the voice of militants demanding and being granted a right that doesn’t exist. Roe can’t be settled law because its premise is lawless.
Bill O’Brien is right in his position to refuse to acknowledge Roe as buttoned-up law. It’s not. Furthermore, O’Brien is accurate when he likens the clandestine taking of innocent life as an act of terrorism, and not altogether unlike the Court’s ugly and overturned determination that a black man (Dred Scott) was not a person and therefore, not entitled to protection under the law.
Finally, the assertion that O’Brien is weaponizing Roe is as silly as it is illogical. Those of us who believe and defend the sanctity of life view Roe itself as a weapon pointed at the tiny, defenseless bodies of the unborn. Roe is the legalization of the heinous act of murder, so long as it’s limited to the confines of the womb, and carried out in the secret mills of the abortionists — unseen, undetected, and unreported. This can never be settled law.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –