Democratic Witness At Judiciary Committee Abortion Hearing Says Men Can Get Pregnant And Have Abortions

A witness called by Democrats to a Judiciary Committee hearing in the House Wednesday claimed that men are capable of getting pregnant and having abortions if they please.

Yes, really.

Aimee Arrambide, executive director of pro-abortion non-profit AVOW was grilled by Republican North Carolina Rep. Dan Bishop, who asked her how she would define a woman.

“I believe that everyone can identify for themselves,” Arrambide responded, prompting Bishop to further ask “Do you believe then that men can become pregnant and have abortions?”

“Yes,” Arrambide answered.

Incredible.

Keep reading

Leaked memo says Biden administration is preparing for violence after abortion ruling

The Department of Homeland Security is preparing for an increase in political violence after the Supreme Court hands down its official ruling on Roe v. Wade in the coming weeks, according to a leaked memo reported Wednesday.

First Axios and then Fox News published details from a May 13 memo revealing that federal law enforcement is investigating threats made on social media to “burn down or storm” the Supreme Court building. Pro-abortion-rights activists began making such threats earlier in the month when a draft majority opinion leaked to Politico indicated the court had voted to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban and overturn the landmark Roe decision.

Pro-abortion protesters have called for a “summer of rage,” with the expectation that the court will roll back abortion rights. Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices have already endured potentially illegal protests outside their private homes, and the headquarters of a pro-life organization was attacked with a Molotov cocktail in Madison, Wisconsin.

Keep reading

Left-Wing Group Targets Homes Of 6 Conservative SCOTUS Justices

A left-wing group published its plans for protests outside of the six conservative Supreme Court justices’ homes, calling them “extremist.”

The group, going by “Ruth Sent Us,” published what it claims are the addresses of Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts, seemingly in response to the Monday SCOTUS draft opinion leak that signaled the majority of the court may vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“ANNOUNCING: Walk-by Wednesday, May 11, 2022! At the homes of the six extremist justices, three in Virginia and three in Maryland. If you’d like to join or lead a peaceful protest, let us know,” the website of “Ruth Sent Us” states.

“Our 6-3 extremist Supreme Court routinely issues rulings that hurt women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ and immigrant rights. We must rise up to force accountability using a diversity of tactics,” it adds.

Keep reading

As America Implodes Over Roe V. Wade, Latest Pfizer Dump Reveals 100s of Pages of Severe Vaccine Reactions

If you have turned on your television, opened a web browser, or scrolled social media on your mobile device, you have likely seen the news about the leaked draft report from the Supreme Court about potentially overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision.

Despite the leaked opinion being a draft — meaning it is not a decision yet — Politico ran with the headline, “EXCLUSIVE: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights.” In the last 48 hours, this report has set off a tailspin of uproar, protests, political rage, and even riots, yet inside the article, Politico admits that this decision is not final:

Deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled. The court’s holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months.

Nevertheless, America’s outrage has shifted from Ukraine and Elon Musk…. to abortion. The fact that abortion is an issue of the state at all, no matter which ‘side you are on,’ is Orwellian. Government has no more business paying for or advocating for abortions than they do stopping them.

Unfortunately, many people allow emotion to rule their logic and end up holding beliefs which are entirely contradictory. For example, since the covid vaccine has been approved by the FDA, many of the same folks who support a woman’s right to choose were completely resolute with taking away that right to choose when it came to taking the jab. The cognitive dissonance is rife.

Unfortunately, abortion is a reality, and society is slowly figuring out how to deal with it. But, the more the state attempts to interject their bias into this reality, the more skewed the situation becomes. Case in point: asking your rapist for permission to not have his baby or people singing about and celebrating the fact that they have had multiple abortions.

The fact of the matter is a society that treats the potential for life as disposable is a society in a crisis of conscience, and in need of self-reflection. However, the state’s involvement in the matter has only served to complicate the issue, prolong suffering, and, as the following example illustrates, serve as a massive distraction by keeping the masses fighting amongst each other.

While the left and the right devolve into hate-filled calls for death over their stance on abortion, the powers that be are likely laughing all the way to the bank, especially Pfizer.

As many may recall, Pfizer originally asked that the trial data for their coivd vaccine not be released for 75 years. Thankfully, sounder minds prevailed, and in January, after the FDA and Pfizer received massive backlash for delaying the release of that data, U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman ordered the agency to turn over 55,000 pages of vaccine trial data every month. On March 1, that first release came and not a single mainstream outlet reported on it.

We did.

Since then, there have been two more dumps, the most recent of which came out on the same day as the leaked SCOTUS documents. Coincidence?

This latest release can be found via the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency Documents database here or at the Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) site here.

Keep reading

Anarchist Collective Shares Instructions to Make DIY Abortion Pills

With the Supreme Court poised to overturn the constitutional right to abortion, an anarchist collective that makes DIY medicine has released detailed instructions for making abortion pills. The group has previously released instructions for making a DIY Epipen and for making daraprim, the pill that made “pharma bro” Martin Shkreli infamous.  

The Four Thieves Vinegar Collective first demonstrated how to make misoprostol tablets, which are used to induce an abortion, at the Please Try This at Home conference in Pittsburgh in 2019. Last year, after Texas passed a near total abortion ban, Mixael Laufer, who runs the collective, published a 17-minute video explaining how to make the pills at home.

“The first thing to mention is this has been put together with a little bit of haste,” Laufer says. “There’s been a great deal of panic because the Republic of Texas has gotten up to some shenanigans to benefit people who are in power and to keep a bunch of other people powerless.”

Laufer repeatedly shared the video again Monday night after a leaked court decision showed that the Supreme Court is planning to overturn Roe v. Wade, which would automatically trigger total abortion bans in nearly half of U.S. states. When a Twitter user asked if there was a writeup of their “hypothetical” abortion pill manufacturing process, Laufer responded with a link to the video.

“Not hypothetical at all. Go forth and rock it,” Laufer tweeted

Keep reading

The Irrational, Misguided Discourse Surrounding Supreme Court Controversies Such as Roe v. Wade

Politico on Monday night published what certainly appears to be a genuine draft decision by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Alito’s draft ruling would decide the pending case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which concerns the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi law that bans abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy except in the case of medical emergency or severe fetal abnormalities. Given existing Supreme Court precedent that abortion can only be restricted after fetal viability, Mississippi’s ban on abortions after the 15th week — at a point when the fetus is not yet deemed viable — is constitutionally dubious. To uphold Mississippi’s law — as six of the nine Justices reportedly wish to do — the Court must either find that the law is consistent with existing abortion precedent, or acknowledge that it conflicts with existing precedent and then overrule that precedent on the ground that it was wrongly decided.

Alito’s draft is written as a majority opinion, suggesting that at least five of the Court’s justices — a majority — voted after oral argument in Dobbs to overrule Roe on the ground that it was “egregiously wrong from the start” and “deeply damaging.” In an extremely rare event for the Court, an unknown person with unknown motives leaked the draft opinion to Politico, which justifiably published it. A subsequent leak to CNN on Monday night claimed that the five justices in favor of overruling Roe were Bush 43 appointee Alito, Bush 41 appointee Clarence Thomas, and three Trump appointees (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett), while Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by Bush 43, is prepared to uphold the constitutionality of Mississippi’s abortion law without overruling Roe.

Draft rulings and even justices’ votes sometimes change in the period between the initial vote after oral argument and the issuance of the final decision. Depending on whom you choose to believe, this leak is either the work of a liberal justice or clerk designed to engender political pressure on the justices so that at least one abandons their intention to overrule Roe, or it came from a conservative justice or clerk, designed to make it very difficult for one of the justices in the majority to switch sides. Whatever the leaker’s motives, a decision to overrule this 49-year-old precedent, one of the most controversial in the Court’s history, would be one of the most significant judicial decisions issued in decades. The reaction to this leak — like the reaction to the initial ruling in Roe back in 1973 — was intense and strident, and will likely only escalate once the ruling is formally issued.

Every time there is a controversy regarding a Supreme Court ruling, the same set of radical fallacies emerges regarding the role of the Court, the Constitution and how the American republic is designed to function. Each time the Court invalidates a democratically elected law on the ground that it violates a constitutional guarantee — as happened in Roe — those who favor the invalidated law proclaim that something “undemocratic” has transpired, that it is a form of “judicial tyranny” for “five unelected judges” to overturn the will of the majority. Conversely, when the Court refuses to invalidate a democratically elected law, those who regard that law as pernicious, as an attack on fundamental rights, accuse the Court of failing to protect vulnerable individuals.

This by-now-reflexive discourse about the Supreme Court ignores its core function. Like the U.S. Constitution itself, the Court is designed to be an anti-majoritarian check against the excesses of majoritarian sentiment. The Founders wanted to establish a democracy that empowered majorities of citizens to choose their leaders, but also feared that majorities would be inclined to coalesce around unjust laws that would deprive basic rights, and thus sought to impose limits on the power of majorities as well.

Keep reading