.jpg) |
| Tong |
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong sounded very much like an extremist libertarian when he commented, following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that plaintiffs had no standing in a mifepristone case brought before the court, “Medication abortion is safe, legal and accessible in Connecticut. That was true before today, and following this decision, it will stay that way.”
However, Tong advised, “Anti-choice radicals are combing
this decision as we speak and have already started the process of coming back
with new plaintiffs. We will fight back at every single step along the way to
protect the rights of patients and providers to live their lives and do their
jobs free from extremist political micromanagement. [Emphasis mine}.”
The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, giddily approved by
Tong, Governor Ned Lamont, Lieutenant Governor Susan Bysiewicz and other
prominent state Democrats, was penned by associate Justice Brett Kavanagh, who
wrote, echoing a court decision that shuttled decision making on the matter of
abortion from courts to state legislatures in Dobbs v Jackson, that “federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the
plaintiffs concern about the FDA’s actions.” In addition, Kavanaugh wrote, the
plaintiffs had no standing before the court because they could not show that
they had been injured by an FDA decision that expanded its approvals — in 2016
and then again in 2021 — to allow mifepristone, an abortifacient, to be used up
to the 10th week of pregnancy and to be prescribed remotely via telemedicine.
In Dobbs v Jackson,
Justice Alito wrote, “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue
of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. ‘The permissibility of
abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important
questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then
voting.’ Casey, 505 U.S., at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part
and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law
demand.”
That decision lends support to a Connecticut statute that in
essence incorporates Roe v Wade into
Connecticut statutory law, one of the most deeply concealed state secrets this
election year among Connecticut Democrats, including its governor and all the
Democrat members of the state’s U.S. Congressional offices.
U.S. Seantor Dick Blumenthal has vigorously opposed the
nominations to the high court of so called “conservative” justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, all originalists, as was Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who notably
said of the post-Justice Antonin Scalia court, “We are all originalists
now.”
Before moving on to the U.S. Senate, Blumenthal had been for
20 years Connecticut’s Attorney General, and as such blissfully unconcerned
that providers of goods and services in the Constitution State should be able
to live their lives free from extremist political micromanagement by the Attorney
General.
Blumenthal was preceded in the office by the recently
departed former U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman. Both Lieberman and Blumenthal
materially changed the nature of the office from what used to be called in
colonial days “The King’s Lawyer,” an office that was statutorily obligated to
represent the judicial interests of the state’s chief executive, into the
prosecutorial arm of Connecticut’s Department of Consumer Protection.
The 40 years in office of Lieberman and Blumenthal have set
the pattern of their Democrat successors.
As a prosecutorial enforcer for Connecticut’s Department of Consumer
Protection, Tong’s job is to heap upon providers of goods and services in
Connecticut binding findings and resolutions that prevent otherwise free
citizens from living their lives and doing their jobs “free from extremist political
micromanagement.” Tong, Blumenthal and Lieberman may properly be characterized
as political micromanagers of the highest order. None, in their official
duties, are motivated by libertarian concerns, chiefly the preservation of personal
liberty though restraints on run-amuck political agencies.
Why should Planned Parenthood, a global operation, be the
only mega-company that Connecticut Democrat libertarians decline to regulate?
Abortion regulations, provided they are enacted by the state legislature and
not unelected and autocratic judges, should be decided by state legislatures
and not the judiciary, which oversteps its Constitutional separation of powers
bounds when judges legislate from the bench. That is the sum and substance of Dobbs v Jackson. Would it not be
churlish – not to mention aggressively undemocratic – of the state’s sometime
libertarian attorney general to pointlessly refute the point? Under current
state legislation, after all, Connecticut has become the abortion capital of
the northeast.
Comments