 |
| 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