Since someone leaked a confidential early draft that the Supreme Court was considering overturning Roe, the Left has energized itself as never before. The communist activist Saul Alinsky, writing in his Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer, advised followers to "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Liberals are following his counsel to the T.
Any attempt to identify the Court leaker was thwarted, with Adam Schiff, the Chairman of House Intelligence, tweeting, "I don't care how the draft leaked. That's a sideshow. What I care about is that a small number of conservative justices, who lied about their plans to the Senate, intend to deprive millions of women of reproductive care." What happened to the principle of conserving the integrity of the Court's internal deliberations for which America is celebrated around the world?
When the Supreme Court, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, did overturn Roe on a 5-4 vote, the Left went berserk, adopting other Alinsky tactics, such as "Keep the pressure on." Protesters used bullhorns, banged drums, and chanted slogans threatening the justices' peace. Maryland law prohibits a person from "intentionally assembling in a manner that disrupts a person's right to tranquility in the person's home." The situation became so dangerous that the marshal of the Supreme Court wrote a letter asking Maryland and Virginia officials to direct law enforcement to enforce state and county laws prohibiting picketing outside the homes of Supreme Court justices. The Justice Department charged one man with attempting or threatening to kidnap or murder a U.S. judge (Justice Brett Kavanaugh).
Rather than accept the Court's ruling as legitimate and the new law of the land, a tradition that establishes the United States as an exceptional Democracy, the Left has continued to pursue all forms of resistance. Reminiscent of the 2020 campaign to increase the use of no-excuse absentee ballots and drop-boxes, activists have already filed dozens of court cases in state courts with the intent to slow things down. In Texas, they got a state judge to permit abortions to proceed based on overruling a dormant 1925 law. The Texas Supreme Court overruled the judge giving the state, which strictly controls abortion, to prevail.
Freshly motivated, liberals pointed to Europe to show how America was being shamed in Brussels. The E.U. parliament overwhelmingly condemned the Supreme Court ruling in a 324-155 vote and wrote into the E.U. fundamentals rights charter language to permit abortions.
On Friday, to appease the uncontrolled Left, President Biden issued an Executive Order ensuring access to contraception and other women's health services. What part of the Dobbs decision doesn't the White House get, a ruling so clear that a high school student can grasp the logic?
Let's recap the Dobbs decision. First, the Supreme Court said that a prior Court was wrong to grant a Constitutional right to an abortion in 1973 - because the word abortion is not even mentioned in the text. The Bill of Rights only granted freedoms to the matters like press, speech, religion, and guns, but not abortions. It was not deemed vital enough to be enshrined into the federal Constitution.
Second, the Court pointed out that the tenth amendment expressly authorized the states, as laboratories of democracy, to pass laws for most matters that impact people and govern how they wanted to exist: birth, education, crime, marriage, divorce, and death. Abortion, as a consequence, should be a state matter and be left out of the federal Constitution.
The Dobbs decision did not outlaw abortion in the United States. It merely delegated the matter to the individual states, wresting responsibility from the federal government.
But that the Biden E.O. violates the Supreme Court's intent does not bother the Left, which believes in another of Alinksy's mantras: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. "
In the E.O., the president directs the health and human services secretary to "ensure women have access to family planning services." How would this order work in states that have already banned such services? If the order was intended for blue states that already have these services, what is the federal role here?
Some liberals have urged the secretary to go further, such as establish a remarkably dubious Dobbs workaround: set up abortion clinics on federal land in states that limit abortion. Another idea is to offer abortion services at federally-run Veterans Administration hospitals. What would happen if state police were to begin to enforce state law? A battle between federal agents and state troopers at high noon? What's next? E.O.s that overrule other state laws, that the White House doesn't like, by operating sanctuary islands on federal property within the states?
We may appear to be turning into a banana republic, but to the Left, all that matters is victory. Saul Alinksy, who died in 1972, would be genuinely proud.
Related tippinsights article:
Nearly Half Say Abortion Will Stay Legal In Their State Even If Roe V. Wade Is Overturned: I&I/TIPP Poll
Please share with anyone who would benefit from the tippinsights newsletter. Please direct them to the sign-up page at: