US Clarence Thomas and His Friends Are Coming for Your Uterus

Clarence Thomas and His Friends Are Coming for Your Uterus​

1631989320715.jpeg

There’s a reason that the partisan hacks of the Supreme Court keep protesting about how they’re not partisan hacks.

A year after Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, they’re racing to overturn Roe v. Wade, while pretending they’re not and speaking out against the partisan hackery they’re engaged in.

It’s an ironic turn of events, if a sadly unsurprising one, as first Amy Coney Barrett and now Clarence Thomasdelivered speeches asking Americans to trust them—speeches that just happened to come before the Supreme Court’s next session when they’ve agreed to hear the Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that’s teed up for the high court’s Trumpy new majority to end abortion as we’ve known it.

This Case Will Mark the Beginning of the End for Roe v. Wade


They’re coming for your uterus, and that’s not hyperbole. The central tenet of Roe is viability, that “a person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.”

Since 1973, American women have had the right to end a pregnancy before viability. Now, the Supreme Court has allowed that right to be subverted in the state of Texas. Women there are already driving hundreds of miles to Colorado and New Mexico to get abortions. Three out of four abortion clinics in San Antonio are no longer performing the procedure.

Now the justices who used the shadow docket to let that happen are begging to be themselves judged on their shtick and not on their actions. On Thursday, speaking at a Catholic university, Thomas said that “when we begin to venture into the legislative or executive branch lanes, those of us, particularly in the federal judiciary with lifetime appointments, are asking for trouble.”

You'll remember Thomas as someone who said in 1992 that Roe v. Wade was “plainly wrong.” In 2020, Thomas upped that to “grievously wrong for many reasons, but the most fundamental is that its core holding—that the Constitution protects a woman's right to abort her unborn child—finds no support in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

In his speech this week, Thomas also warned that “we have lost the capacity” as leaders “to not allow others to manipulate our institutions when we don't get the outcomes that we like.” Hmmm, didn’t his wife Ginni try to “manipulate our institutions” when she didn’t get the outcome she liked? She was a big Jan. 6 cheerleader, telling a group of election-denying insurrectionists on Facebook that “GOD BLESS EACH OF YOU STANDING UP or PRAYING.” Two days later, she added “[Note: written before violence in US Capitol]” and a few days after that she ended up having to write to her husband’s former clerks that “I owe you all an apology. I have likely imposed on you my lifetime passions.”

I guess her “lifetime passion” is overturning elections?

As to venturing into the executive branch’s lane, that didn’t seem to be an issue for the Thomases during the Trump administration when, according to Slate, “Trump has rewarded Thomas with an extraordinary amount of access to the Oval Office. Her advocacy group Groundswell got an audience with the president in early 2019. According to the New York Times, the meeting was arranged after Clarence and Ginni Thomas had dinner with the Trumps.”

Clarence Thomas’ Wife Calls Anita Hill: Why Ginni Did It

Clarence Thomas’ speech about court overreach came a week after Justice Amy Coney Barrett told a group at the University of Louisville, “My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” since “judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties.” She was introduced at the McConnell Center by her patron and the center's namesake, Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who some might say is the very definition of a partisan hack.

I understand the temptation of these justices to lie to the American public. They want to have it both ways, to serve the Republican agenda and overturn Roe while also maintaining what’s left of the court’s reputation for transcending ideology.

But, unfortunately for Thomas and Barrett, most of us will judge them on their actions and not ridiculous speeches about them. I expect that as the Republican agenda gets ever more batshit, these Trumpy justices will give more speeches pleading with people not to see them as the partisan hacks that they are.

The American people are not morons, and while these justices may abuse their power to decide the law, they can’t spit on us and make us believe that it’s raining.
Article Archive
 
For all the shouting about keeping men away from women's uteruses, has anybody bothered to point out that every prohibition and allowance of abortion has been and is designed and voted for (or alternatively, drafted from a judicial bench) by men, every method of abortion has been designed by men, every drug used for abortion has been formulated by men, every tool used for abortion has been designed by men and manufactured by either men or machines, and most abortions since Roe v. Wade have been performed by men-- even if there's currently a 60% chance that the gynecologist performing your abortion will be a woman (well, at any rate, 60% of gynecologists are women as of recent)?

Men have been in your uteruses from the start, at every stage of the baby-killing apparatus. There was never any escape from this.

Imagine being so uninformed that as a reporter you think Roe is still the controlling law on abortion.
They attribute to Roe what's actually from Planned Parenthood, if that's not bad enough.
 
Clarence Thomas isn't "coming" for anything. He's a justice who determines the constitutionality of laws. He's not writing any abortion laws. If he and a majority of his peers decided that Roe v. Wade was actually unconstitutional, then abortion legality would just go back to the states to establish.

I'm personally pro-choice, but this is just mindless fear-mongering. Leftists are retarded.
 
Democrats have a full house when it comes to controlling the government and absolutely no qualms about using the commerce clause in ways it was blatantly never intended. Why not just pass a federal abortion bill?
 
I'm personally pro-choice, but this is just mindless fear-mongering. Leftists are retarded.
Compared to how the super woke treat abortion, I'm pro-life. I'm pretty sure even people for pro-life agree that rape victims and women that will actually die or can't take care of a retard baby should get an abortion and not be scrutinized, ghoulish women and a few limpwristed men talking about how much they love abortions does nothing but make them look like what they are. Monsters that probably should've been aborted themselves.
 
You'll remember Thomas as someone who said in 1992 that Roe v. Wade was “plainly wrong.” In 2020, Thomas upped that to “grievously wrong for many reasons, but the most fundamental is that its core holding—that the Constitution protects a woman's right to abort her unborn child—finds no support in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
He's not wrong and he's not alone in believing so. If these femtards really wanted a constitutional right to abortion they could have pushed for a constitutional amendment immediately after Roe v Wade (many legal scholars urged this at the time), which would require three-fourths of the states (ie 38 of 50 States) to ratify said amendment. Of course they would have to be rational and make concessions but we all know femtards are too crazy to be reasonable and compromise so here are. They also thought they were getting the ERA passed which failed, mostly due to the femtards at the time being absolute nuts (and the glowies embedded for fun).
 
Democrats have a full house when it comes to controlling the government and absolutely no qualms about using the commerce clause in ways it was blatantly never intended. Why not just pass a federal abortion bill?
Because then it's their asses on the hot seats when they have to argue the ethics in baby-killing on a national stage for all to see, and they're much more vulnerable than the Supreme Court justices they confirm.
 
The 14th Amendment was very likely the beginning of the end of the American Republic, as it has enabled and emboldened all of the various judicial super-legislative activism of the 20th and 21st centuries. It is an endless fount from which any 'right' can be divined if the Supreme Court stares into it long enough.
 
Democrats have a full house when it comes to controlling the government and absolutely no qualms about using the commerce clause in ways it was blatantly never intended. Why not just pass a federal abortion bill?
It has to be a constitutional amendment, otherwise the Supreme Court could smack it down. Problem is the bulk of the states in the US are Republican and would absolutely refuse to adopt such an amendment. As for the Republicans, who ostensibly dislike abortion for religious reasons, if they didn't put an amendment in back during the Bush years it will never happen. A Majority of states has to adopt the amendment and Republicans have never had as many states as they had during 2004.

1632069843.png


Republican control over the country was deep and easily could have rammed an Anti-Abortion amendment in. I think Scalia was correct in his assessment that no direct challenge to Roe v Wade could or should be entertained, but rather "chip away at the door hinges" as he stated, this is something that has occured. Religious mandates preventing funding for it and the viability window are just two examples of this door hinge strategy at work. Clarence Thomas has been quietly telling the Abortion lobbyist to shit or get off the pot for decades, either put it formally into law or run the risk of the ship capsizing.
 
It has to be a constitutional amendment, otherwise the Supreme Court could smack it down. Problem is the bulk of the states in the US are Republican and would absolutely refuse to adopt such an amendment. As for the Republicans, who ostensibly dislike abortion for religious reasons, if they didn't put an amendment in back during the Bush years it will never happen. A Majority of states has to adopt the amendment and Republicans have never had as many states as they had during 2004.

View attachment 2551545

Republican control over the country was deep and easily could have rammed an Anti-Abortion amendment in. I think Scalia was correct in his assessment that no direct challenge to Roe v Wade could or should be entertained, but rather "chip away at the door hinges" as he stated, this is something that has occured. Religious mandates preventing funding for it and the viability window are just two examples of this door hinge strategy at work. Clarence Thomas has been quietly telling the Abortion lobbyist to shit or get off the pot for decades, either put it formally into law or run the risk of the ship capsizing.
actually it goes deeper than that. you need 38 states to add the amendment. any less than that and it wont happen. even in democrat states i doubt any but the most hardcore are all in on abortion to the point it should be an amendment.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: IAmNotAlpharius
Back