Planned Parenthood In Panic Over Nomination Of Neil Gorsuch - GOOD

I’m going to call this out as ludicrous, on its face.

Planned Parenthood’s chief ghoul, Cecile Richards is afraid that abortion activists won’t speak up – loud and disgustingly proud – against Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, thus allowing him to step in and take away their murder rights right to abort the unborn.

“We can’t sit back and wait until the next extreme attack on our fundamental rights is being debated before the Supreme Court. If we want to defend our Constitution, if we want to protect reproductive health, including access to abortion, if we are going to stand arm in arm with allies for social justice — it has to be now, Richards writes Planned Parenthood backers in an action alert. “Combined with the Trump administration’s extreme and reckless track record so far, it’s clear we need to fight back now — and be ready for whatever comes next.”

“Judge Gorsuch’s judicial history shows an alarming hostility to” abortion, Richards complains — adding that she is upset Gorsuch ruled in favor of pro-life organizations and businesses that don’t want to be forced to pay for drugs that cause abortions.

The woman is unhinged, in the worst, possible way.

For starters, if she really cares about defending the Constitution, it would seem that she would be cheering on Gorsuch’s nomination, as his reputation is that of a strict textualist, believing that you stick to the letter of the Constitution and properly follow through with its intent – not make law.

But of course, we know this isn’t what she means.

As for reproductive health, having known women who have undergone the abominable practice of abortion, I can say for a fact, that not only does it not make their reproductive systems healthier, but the mental and emotional scarring can last a lifetime.

Richards wants abortion advocates to begin a hard push against their representatives in Washington to vote against Gorsuch, in order to deny him the late Justice Scalia’s open seat.

“We must push the Senate to confront Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, on his anti-reproductive rights record. We must hold him accountable and demand that he clearly affirm his support for Roe v. Wade,” she says.

She keeps using that term – reproductive rights – as a euphemism for what she’s really after. I think I would almost respect her more if she took the mask off and stopped trying to give a professional-sounding, cleaned up title to what amounts to infanticide.

I guess for the despicable left, Gorsuch’s nomination really is a nightmare. He’s a judge who believes in sticking to the letter of the Constitution, rather than taking liberties with the text, in order to prop up a liberal ideology, as some of those who are now sitting on the Supreme Court have done over the years.

One of the biggest problems pro-life advocates have with the Supreme Court is that it invented a so-called right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. But Gorsuch’s writings indicate he opposes that kind of thinking. In a 2005 National Review article, Gorsuch wrote that  liberals rely on the courts too much to made social policy.

This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs–real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce–are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.

Oh, the courts have long been accomplices in forcing horrible policy on the nation, in order to appease the perversions of the left wing.

He said liberal activists rely on the judicial system “as the primary means of effecting their social agenda on everything from gay marriage to assisted suicide to the use of vouchers for private-school education.”

OH – We know that one is true.

Gorsuch, likewise opposed to assisted suicide (He wrote a book about it before he was a judge), has a history of leaning in favor of pro-life, when it comes to cases.

He sided with Utah Governor Gary Herbert’s efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, writing a strong dissent in the case:

Respectfully, this case warrants rehearing. As it stands, the panel opinion leaves litigants in preliminary injunction disputes reason to worry that this court will sometimes deny deference to district court factual findings; relax the burden of proof by favoring attenuated causal claims our precedent disfavors; and invoke arguments for reversal untested by the parties, unsupported by the record, and inconsistent with principles of comity. Preliminary injunction disputes like this one recur regularly and ensuring certainty in the rules governing them, and demonstrating that we will apply those rules consistently to all matters that come before us, is of exceptional importance to the law, litigants, lower courts, and future panels alike. I respectfully dissent.

And from the National Review, this bit of encouragement for the pro-life crowd:

Meanwhile, as National Review reports, “Gorsuch wrote a powerful dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc in a case involving funding of Planned Parenthood.” NR indicates Gorsuch has written “human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and that the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

The emphasis there is mine, because I can’t agree strongly enough.

Expect the Democrats to fight this one. They’re still miffed over Republican refusal to allow for a vote on Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, calling this a “stolen seat,” as if it were owed to Garland.

But then, rationality has never been a virtue of the radical left.

Here’s a thought: Since the vicious gits of the left will be calling their senators to push against Gorsuch, maybe we should be calling to encourage them to vote for him.