Skip to main content

Blumenthal, Pro-Abortion Extremist

Blumenthal

U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s inflexible position onabortion -- neither states nor the federal government shall pass ANY reasonable law regulating abortion – places him in a minority of a minority of a minority -- even in his home state.

Blumenthal’s fanatical support of abortion and his fierce opposition to reasonable abortion restrictions is granular. He even voted against S.311/H.R.962, the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which provides “If an abortion results in the live birth of an infant, the infant is a legal person for all purposes under the laws of the United States, and entitled to all the protections of such laws.”

The following data points should serve as beacons of light in the gathering gloom of the oncoming pro-abortion/anti-abortion battle.

Three quarters of the world’s nations, including much of Western Europe, ban abortion after two weeks, while only seven nations throughout the world currently permit abortion after twenty weeks of gestation. In seven U.S. States, Democrats have proposed laws permitting abortion up to the moment of birth. Blumenthal’s position allies with that of Planned Parenthood, a worldwide abortion provider, both a money stakeholder and a Blumenthal campaign contributor.

According to a new Associated Press poll, “61% of Americans say abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances in the first trimester of a pregnancy. However, 65% said abortion should usually be illegal in the second trimester, and 80% said that about the third trimester.”

For 20 years Connecticut’s “regulator–in-chief” as the state’s Attorney General, Blumenthal has consistently denounced and voted down any abortion regulation, as befits a pro-abortionist comfortably seated at the extreme edge of abortion fanaticism. One supposes that even the members of ANTIFA might support a ban on partial birth abortion, which would not, as abortion fanatics loudly proclaim, rob women of their “right to choose.”

Blumenthal knows that regulating Big Business does not drive it from the field. Lord knows, he had regulated enough businesses during his time as Attorney General to understand that a regulation is not a death sentence, as abortion most certainly is. When Blumenthal left office to assume his duties as U.S. Senator from Connecticut, he left his successor, former State Senate Majority Leader from 1997 to 2003 George Jepsen, and past Chairman of the Connecticut State Democratic Party from 2003 to 2005 more than 200 long standing cases that had yet to be settled. Jepsen immediately resolved the long pending cases by dismissing them as unmerited, a reprieve that instantly released hundreds of Blumenthal’s victims from legal limbo.

Among the myths driving the pro-abortion movement in the United States is that should the Supreme Court decide in a case before it, Dobbs v. Jackson, that abortion may be regulated – or not -- by state legislatures rather than the federal government or autocratic and infirm Supreme Court rulings, such a finding would deprive women of a right to abortion. Not true. Abortion would not be outlawed, unless an individual state chose to do so. Most likely, abortion would be limited to the first term of a pregnancy, a recognition that the fetus evolves during the usual nine months of a pregnancy into a baby that does not differ towards the end of a pregnancy from a newly born child.

The truth of the matter is that the Roe v. Wade decision was, as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg plainly said, a “heavy-handed judicial intervention [that] was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

The conflict to which Bader Ginsberg refers rests upon different understandings in ethics and science which, in the postmodern world, has become a touchstone for moral decision making. Science – and, perhaps more importantly, advances in technology such as ultrasound – confirm that a fetus after the first trimester is not an undifferentiated mass of protoplasm. Mighty oak trees really do spring from acorns, and the visible difference between the two does not support the notion that baby lambs spring from acorns as well, or that acorns on their path to perfection do not produce oak trees.

Stare decisis – the interpretive doctrine that precedence should be heavily weighted in deciding cases involving similar facts – is important but not dispositive in past important Supreme Court reviews.  Among case decisions supported by liberals that have overturned years of precedent are: Brown v. Board of Education (school desegregation), Baker v. Carr (one man, one vote), Miranda (advising of rights), Gideon (right to counsel) and Obergefell (gay marriage), all cases in which years of precedent had been overturned, rightly so.

There is no question that religions throughout history, particularly orthodox Judaism, Christianity and Islam, regard the procuring of an abortion as a grievous sin, but religion in an age such as ours is dispositive only for believers and not necessarily for atheists, practical atheists, and what has been called cultural religionists. The notion that the pro-abortion afflatus finds support among these groups may not be true.

Even an atheist may find it easy to throw off the notion that mighty oaks do NOT spring from acorns. And so may those progressives among us who have noticed that abortion is significantly more prevalent in the Black than the White community, a difference that is both inequitable and has about it a foul odor of racial discrimination.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p