Posted on 09/26/2020 1:07:20 AM PDT by John Semmens
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) warned Trump to not fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of long-serving Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She went on to ironically claim that "the appointment of a successor who does not share the same perspective on abortion rights will signal that the Republicans are coming after our children."
The reality is that during her time on the Court Ginsburg was a staunch opponent of any limitations on abortion. She helped steer the Court to strike down many state statutes that sought to limit the carnage wrought against the tiniest humans. Her replacement by almost anyone else would seem to make the womb a much less dangerous place. Making the womb a less dangerous place was the motivation for President Trump to sign an executive order banning the murder of babies who survive an attempted abortion.
Pelosi questioned Trump's sincerity, asserting that "the only reason he wants to save these unwanted lives is to win votes. Remember, before he ran for president he, like most New Yorkers, was pro-choice. We already have the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2002. Why do we now need an Executive Order?"
Perhaps we need the Executive Order because the 2002 law is widely ignored. Last year, Gov. Ralph Northam (D-Va) admitted that the law is not enforced in his state. "The normal practice is for the aborting doctors to simply allow babies to die if they were erroneously born in an attempted abortion," he said. "The key words that allow us to ignore the law are 'born alive.' The survivor of an abortion is, in our view, not properly 'born.' It is merely a result of a botched medical procedure. Trump's Executive Order has the same defect. Consequently, we hold that neither the 2002 Law nor the recent Executive Order can be used to compel life-saving interventions to be performed. For the feds to try to enforce either would be the most blatant trampling of Virginia's state's rights since Lincoln was president."
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,415476.new.html#new
ping
They are not coming after your children Nancy. They are trying to keep you from killing your children. Stop bending things!
To end the life of a defenseless individual who could have in no way committed any punishable offense, is quite simply murder.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) warned Trump to not fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of long-serving Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She went on to ironically claim that “the appointment of a successor who does not share the same perspective on abortion rights will signal that the Republicans are coming after our children.”............Who says an appointed successor to the post has to share the perspective on the person they are replacing,Nancy?...............Then, Pelosi goes on to say that Trump’s reasoning for this is to win votes. How about winning votes AND preventing murders of the innocent as opposed to her idea which is only that of winning votes?
If this were an open mic error, everyone would believe it. Semi-semi satire is less strange than what Ms. Pelosi presents to the alleged press.
Thanks, John, for another excellent column of news events stitched together with a few satirical twists.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.