• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Many schools eliminated male/female bathrooms ………!!! (For what REAL REASON?)

May 4, 2022

Normalizing Perversion

By M.B. Mathews at American Thinker:

The reasons for the Left’s perverse sexualizing of very young children make sense only if you are sexually neurotic. None of it makes sense if you are a rational, healthy, sexually normal person. For example, what is to be gained by first graders learning about drag queens and transsexuality? How is a child’s life improved, how is the culture improved when children whose brains are not physically equipped to process such information get exposed to it? If it is the hope of sexualizers that children will be more accepting of perversity, to what end?

No government-schooled child of any age should be taught matters of sexuality, sexual behavior, or sexual identity beyond the egg-sperm basics. There is no legitimate reason for it. Let’s back this truck up and reframe the argument: Instead of settling the debate where conservatives concede “age-appropriateness” ground to the sexualizers, reverse this polluted stream and remove all sexual material from all public and private schools and leave these matters to parents. Conservatives have been far too accommodating on this matter.

Why is the Left so anxious to expose little kids to sexually explicit cartoons of two boys (or one man and one boy) engaging in oral sex, as has been depicted in some schoolbooks? To normalize adult sexuality, normal or perverse, for small children is to tell them that it is normal for them to engage in it at their age. It isn’t. This is like putting a boulder on an egg. Kids are eggs, easily molded and more easily scrambled. That makes them perfect victims for pernicious child predators. The same goes for transsexual material. Why groom a child into transsexuality, then try to hide it from parents if it is not wrong? Is this mere prurience or something more deeply malevolent?

We have recently discovered many instances of child grooming in and out of the classroom: Many schools eliminated male/female bathrooms in favor of unisex bathrooms, which are grooming grounds for perverts. Some men insist on being called women and are entering the locker rooms of women and young girls – starkers – flashing their junk and not batting an eye. Is life so dull for sexualizers that they must create some illicit sizzle? Is sexual bombast the only way for some odious people to feel that their damaged presence in the world has meaning?

Online videos laced with explicit content and profanity have been on the rise. They depict pedophiles luring and fondling small children. A simple search of the internet will pull up many pedophiles (almost always men), caught in the act of trying to engage very young children in sexual encounters on buses, in big box stores, and elsewhere. What used to be rare has become commonplace.

It is a goal of the Left to strip sexuality of its decency, its sanctity, and its beauty. Because they abhor the very idea of a God who holds people responsible for the breaking of His commandments and biblical principles, they do all they can to reduce sexual behavior to an animal act, a bodily function. It’s very Darwin, very Rousseau, two heroes of the Left. These two men still speak to us from the grave with their fetid breath.

Depriving children of their childhood by sexualizing them is a crime worthy of the worst possible punishment. Children should be playing games, getting dirty, and learning how to interact properly with other children and with adults. They should be learning good manners, honor, decency, and respect for others. They should be learning math, honest American and world history, reading, composition, technology, and biology. It seems as though many of these valuable subjects are being broomed in favor of sexual grooming and indoctrination that young children do not benefit from and that actually damage them. When we ask “cui bono?” regarding this kind of sexual malfeasance, we discover that it is the libidinous wolves of both sexes that benefit, not the children.

If we do nothing about the sexualizing of children, can we live as decent human beings knowing that our schools are cranking out jaded, abused, damaged children for whom nothing is saved or sacred as they reach adulthood? Sexuality is treated by the sexualizers as the benign equivalent of choosing tofu over fries. These malignant individuals classify sexual behavior as just one of many things people do, like playing video games or fixing the garbage disposal. But sex was meant to be something else – a creative act, sublime, sacred, elevated, something that is an expression of passionate love, not loveless passion. It was not meant to be crass and prurient. Right now, it should be viewed as the rape of the innocents.

The Bible is clear about luring children or hurting them: “…whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

If you think God is short-tempered with hypocrites, that is nothing compared to the hellish fate He has waiting for pedophiles, groomers, and other degenerates, whether they believe in God or not.


Newsmax host: Maybe Ketanji Brown Jackson’s clerks leaked the Alito draft

ALLAHPUNDIT May 04, 2022

 Share  Tweet  

I’ve heard many theories about the leaker in the past 36 hours but this one is … creative.


As some have suggested, it’s probably true that she’d be a suspect for Republicans if she were already a member of the Court. But she isn’t, as Grant Stinchfield acknowledges in the clip.

Rather, he wonders if Jackson’s clerks might already be at work inside the building. But why would they be? I’d be surprised if she’s hired any clerks yet, frankly, seeing how she was confirmed less than a month ago and likely won’t hear her first case as a justice until the fall.

Even if she has hired some, why would they have started work at the Court before she has? And why would they have access to a draft opinion in the Dobbs case, which of course Jackson hasn’t participated in?

And if for some strange reason they’ve already been hired and begun work, what do we make of the fact that the Alito draft that leaked to Politico was circulated on February 10, 2022, two weeks before Jackson was even nominated?

It’s possible that that draft was sitting in a drawer somewhere inside the Supreme Court building for months until Jackson’s dastardly clerks arrived on the scene a few weeks ago and discovered it. But Mike Lee, who clerked for Alito on the Supreme Court, told Fox News yesterday that drafts tend not to exist for long:


Presumably whoever leaked the February 10 version to Politico was on staff somewhere inside the building on that date and made a surreptitious photocopy before the “burn bag” protocol was followed. Which means it couldn’t have been Jackson’s SCOTUS clerks. Assuming that any such clerks exist yet.

If Stinchfield’s looking to explain how a shocking leak happened so soon after Jackson joined the bench, let me offer a theory: It was a coincidence of timing, the latest (albeit most explosive) evidence that relations between left and right inside the Court are doing about as well as they are outside of it. Shannon Bream flagged a few of SCOTUS’s headaches over the past six months on Monday night. There were the rumors of a dispute over masking on the bench between Sotomayor and Gorsuch. There was the premature leak of Stephen Breyer’s retirement. There were the revelations about Ginni Thomas lobbying Mark Meadows in 2020 to stop the steal. There was the controversy over the “shadow docket.” And underlying all of that was the destabilizing effect of the Court shifting from a 5-4 conservative majority where John Roberts is the ideological center of gravity to a 6-3 conservative majority where Brett Kavanaugh is.

The mood at the Court has been contentious for awhile now, notes CNN:

Within the court itself, recent sessions have been marked by finger-pointing and recriminations among justices. Liberals and conservatives have questioned each other’s motives in cases, and the six justices on the right have sometimes bitterly splintered. Roberts, who before October 2020 was in control as the justice at the ideological middle, has increasingly faced derision by fellow conservatives and been relegated to solo opinions.

The new breach of court secrecy may initially cause the justices to close ranks, as they often do in the face of external scrutiny and criticism. But it could more seriously undermine trust among the nine as a blame game begins.

The moment of truth on Roe may have turbo-charged that rancor, producing an unthinkable and unprecedented leak of a draft opinion. Either a conservative inside the Court did it as a cutthroat attempt to “freeze” the five justices in favor of overturning Roe before any of them could change their minds. Or a liberal did it in a nihilistic burst of anger at the coming decision: “If the court is going to be conservative, then let it have no mystique whatsoever” is how Ross Douthat summarizes the apparent logic of such a move.

The Court held out longer than most other American institutions but its legitimacy now seems in irreversible decline as well, consumed by the same tribal impulses that have incinerated the credibility of, well, pretty much everyone and everything. George Will:

The leaker accomplished nothing but another addition to the nation’s sense of fraying and another subtraction from the norms that preserve institutional functioning and dignity.

The leaker — probably full of passionate intensity, as the worst usually are — will leave a lingering stench in the building where he or she betrayed the trust of those who gave him or her access to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s draft opinion overturning Roe. The leaker probably got into a position to commit this infamous betrayal by swearing never to do such a thing. If justice is done, this person will never again practice law but will experience the law’s rigors.

It’s not clear that there are any legal “rigors” to which the leaker might be subjected, although theories are kicking around about how the matter might conceivably rise to the level of a federal crime. In any case, the leaker surely knew that being found out would mean losing any future career as a practicing lawyer. That reality was already priced into their decision. What they’re probably expecting is to be received as a resistance folk hero by the left (assuming the leaker is a leftist) and gifted with a teaching position somewhere. I wouldn’t bet against it.

Getting To Know Dementia Joe Better! (The one in the white house!)



Democrats have adopted a sacramental view of abortion. They have thus taken up the abortion sacrament as orthodoxy in every absurd extension of the faith. Anything and everything that tends to minimize it must be verboten.

Yesterday President Biden commented on the leaked draft of Justice Alito’s opinion overruling the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe (transcript here, video below). “Roe says what all basic mainstream religions have historically concluded, that the existence of a human life and being is a question,” Biden told reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland. “Is it at the moment of conception? Is it six months? Is it six weeks? Is it quickening, like Aquinas argued?”

The story by Catholic News Agency’s Katie Yoder notes a Biden slip. He also referred in his remarks to the baby in the womb as a “child,” a term abortion supporters generally avoid. “The idea that we’re going to make the judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the Supreme Court, I think, goes way overboard,” Biden said.

Actually, no. If we return to the status quo ante Roe, the legality of abortion and related issues will be returned to the states and/or Congress. Biden acknowledges as much elsewhere in his incoherent, misleading, and hysterical remarks. If Roe bites the dust, the Democrats will take up hysteria as a way of life.

Yoder briefly notes what I understand Catholic doctrine to be: “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception,” the catechism of the Catholic Church reads. “From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

Incidentally, I believe that the “his” in the catechism is generic. It includes “her.”

Yoder’s CNA story notes some of the vagaries of Biden’s own personal journey on the issue. We can safely say that, whatever Biden’s view of abortion is at the moment, the president believes in “evolution.”

The video below captures Biden’s remarks yesterday in their entirety.

“So, what really happens next if Roe v Wade is overturned?”

Now what? ‘Trigger laws’ go into effect if Roe v Wade is struck down

KAREN TOWNSEND May 03, 2022 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib

Thanks to some liberal activist working somewhere at the Supreme Court, the big news today is that it is very likely that Roe v Wade will be overturned. According to a leak provided to Politico, Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in a draft of the court’s decision. Allegedly. If the story turns out to be factual, the question becomes what happens next?

I don’t think I’m going out on too long of a limb to assume it was a liberal activist who provided the leak to Politico. That insider-style online publication is written by writers on the left. It would be a natural place to leak such a momentous decision. It appears that the big scoop isn’t the only one, either, with the news that Chief Justice Roberts may be looking to save some of Roe coming out last night, too. Also, the FBI may be called in to get to the bottom of the leak. What a mess.

We know that progressives and other Democrats are hellbent to destroy America’s major institutions, including the Supreme Court. One way to do that is to pack the court with additional justices. Democrats think the answer to always winning legal challenges is to just pack the court with more liberal justices. That argument surfaced quickly again on social media from Senate Democrats along with the call to end the filibuster in the Senate and blaming former President Trump for “stealing two Supreme Court seats.” One former Planned Parenthood worker, now a U.S. Senator, is particularly agitated.


So, what really happens next if Roe v Wade is overturned? Abortion reverts back to being an issue for individual states, as it was pre-Roe v Wade. Up until 1973 abortions were legal in some states but not others. For example, when I was growing up in Louisiana, abortion was not legal. That was at a time of a Democrat-controlled South, too, long before the Republican Revolution in 1994. Other states, like New York for example, legalized abortion. If the Alito opinion becomes the official ruling by the Supreme Court, ‘trigger laws’ will go into effect in states that strive to limit abortion.

In Texas, the state legislature passed Senate Bill 8 which makes abortion illegal after a heartbeat is detected. The Texas law is unique in that it puts civilians in charge of reporting abortions and filing civil court charges against abortionists and people who help a woman receive an abortion. The trigger in Texas is if Roe v Wade is overturned, district attorneys will have the power to decide whether or not to pursue criminal charges against a woman (er, birthing person) who underwent an abortion. You may remember that last month Jazz wrote about a Texas woman who was arrested and charged with murder for getting an abortion. That case didn’t hold up and was dismissed at the time.

Abortion is still legal in Texas, by the way, even with the latest legislation in effect. You wouldn’t know that to listen to media coverage, though.

“That type of criminalization, usually ends up falling on and poor folks — Brown and Black folks,” says board director for Frontera Fund Alexis Bay. “We saw this in the case in Starr County, affecting people in rural communities in Texas.”

In Texas, the “trigger law” was created before Roe but overturning means prosecutors could choose to fire off this law, further endangering women who would seek abortions by other means.

If Roe v Wade is overturned, abortion will become illegal in 13 states. The case before the Supreme Court is over a law in Mississippi that makes abortion illegal after 15 weeks. That kind of law is usually known as a heartbeat law because 15 weeks is normally when a heartbeat can be detected. State legislatures in red states have been busy writing restrictions on legal abortion in anticipation of the Supreme Court – now with a solid conservative majority – ruling in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. Trigger laws in place in these states mean abortion will immediately be illegal.

Wyoming is the 13th state to pass a a “trigger law” in place — an abortion ban that would kick in right away if the court completely overturns its precedents.

Four states — Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia —have even amended their constitutions to prohibit any protections for abortion rights.

Oklahoma state lawmakers passed a bill in late April that would modify the language of the trigger law to ban abortions if the court “overrules in whole or in part” Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Several other states don’t have trigger laws in place but would likely move quickly to ban or tightly restrict the procedure if the court clears the way: Florida, Indiana, Montana and Nebraska would be prime candidates, according to analysis from the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research organization.

Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and South Carolina have all enacted restrictive laws that were then blocked by federal courts. They could try to revive those policies in a post-Roe world.

Some states, like Michigan and Wisconsin, have pre-Roe abortion bans still on the books, but those would not immediately take effect even if Roe disappears, Elizabeth Nash, a lead state policy analyst for the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research and policy organization, told Axios back in October.

“It would take some kind of action,” Nash said, such as an attorney general issuing an opinion, a state filing a court case, etc.
For some states, it “might” even be easier to pass a new law prohibiting abortion instead of starting the process to make a pre-Roe ban take effect, Nash noted.

However, blue states have also been busy with legislation but on the other side of the argument. States like California and Colorado have passed laws that protect legal abortions if Roe v Wade is overturned. At least 17 states and Washington, D.C., have enacted laws that would automatically keep abortion legal. Currently, Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) is working in the Senate to codify Roe v Wade, so there’s that, too.

Alito’s draft was written in February. It is only now surfacing. Is that because Democrats are so freaked out over what is likely to be a horrible midterm election cycle for them? The leak was probably done to pressure the conservative justices into changing their vote. Chief Justice Roberts will probably side with the liberal justices and try to straddle the fence, as he did with his opinion on Obamacare. The other pro-life justices sure look to be firm in their opinion, though, and it’s very unlikely that any of them will change their opinion now. If anything, this will solidify pro-life people against what is coming from the left who are so committed to abortion on demand, right up to the time of delivery.

I hope the leaker is found and held accountable. I hope Politico is held accountable for their decision to publish the leaked information. And, I’ll once again thank Senator Mitch McConnell for his master control of the Senate during the Trump years. His effective leadership pushed through judicial nominations, including Supreme Court nominations, and the results of his work are seen now.

How Vile Must The Left Drive To Achieve Its Obamacare?

John Roberts’ Cowardice On Obamacare Is Why The Left Thinks It Can Bully and Extort SCOTUS


MAY 03, 2022

With the leak of the purported Dobbs opinion now public, Roberts’ actions have placed a target on the backs of his conservative colleagues.

Author Shawn Fleetwood profile


In a matter of hours, Washington D.C. and the political world have erupted in chaos. On Monday evening, Politico published a report of an alleged leaked draft of a majority U.S. Supreme Court decision that would strike down Roe v. Wade, the 1973 court case that federally legalized abortion in the United States.

Writing for the majority in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito’s alleged draft opinion describes the irrationality of the 1973 ruling, reportedly stating that “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.”

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” writes Alito. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

According to the bombshell report, the leak came from a “person familiar with the court’s deliberations,” with the source also claiming that “four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.”

Although the identity of the leaker currently remains unclear, this person’s intended goal is fairly obvious. In disseminating the alleged Dobbs opinion before its scheduled release, the leaker is seeking to generate a firestorm of vitriol from left-wing activists directed at the court’s Republican-appointed justices, in the hopes that some will switch their position before the final opinion is released.

While such tactics are despicable and completely destroy the long-held and respected inner workings of the high court, it’s not surprising given that previous public pressure campaigns have worked in swaying justices in other highly political cases, with Chief Justice John Roberts being the most notable.

In the 2012 NFIB v. Sebelius decision on Obamacare, for instance, Roberts joined the leftists on the court to uphold the Affordable Care Act (ACA), with the chief justice ruling that the federal government has the power to force citizens to purchase health insurance under its power to tax.

“The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause,” Roberts wrote. “In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

The faulty legal reasoning was not Roberts’ original position on the matter. According to “The Chief,” a book written by longtime SCOTUS reporter Joan Biskupic, Roberts initially had sided with his conservative colleagues in striking down Obamacare, “on the grounds that it went beyond Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.”

Fears over potential public blowback for such a decision, however, prompted Roberts to operate as a politician, with Biskupic noting how “he felt ‘torn between his heart and his head’” over striking down the ACA.

“After trying unsuccessfully to find a middle way with [Justice Anthony] Kennedy, who was ‘unusually firm’ and even ‘put off’ by the courtship, Roberts turned to the Court’s two moderate liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan,” a review of the book published in The Atlantic reads. “The threesome negotiated a compromise decision that upheld the ACA’s individual mandate under Congress’s taxing power, while striking down the Medicaid expansion.”

The book seemingly confirms reporting from CBS News’ Jan Crawford, who in her 2012 story of Roberts’ Obamacare flip-flop noted how the chief justice “pays attention to media coverage” and “is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.”

While Roberts may have thought his last-minute switch to save Obamacare was a bid to maintain peace in politics, it actually did the exact opposite. Roberts’ spinelessness in the 2012 ACA decision was not only unconstitutional garbage, but it also revealed to the neo-Marxist left that the court can be influenced in high-profile cases if there’s enough public outcry waiting in the wings.

With the leak of the purported Dobbs opinion now public, Roberts’ actions have placed a target on the backs of his conservative colleagues, with threats of violence and harassment from leftists on the way. Whether he wants to believe it or not, his decision to play politician has jeopardized the independence of the court for years to come.

Shawn Fleetwood is an intern at The Federalist and a senior at the University of Mary Washington. 

California’s Cultural Wild Fire RISING!

It begins: California will introduce amendment to make abortion a state constitutional right

ALLAHPUNDIT May 03, 2022 1:31 PM ET

 Share  Tweet  

Santiago Mejia/San Francisco Chronicle via AP, Pool, File

Rarely do I point you back to one of my posts as predictive of where politics is going but you could do worse today than to read (re-read?) this one from December.

The short version: We’re about to experience a momentous reversal in the debate over legislating abortion. The liberals who have insisted on one federal policy to rule ’em all since 1972 are set to become ardent federalists. And the conservatives who have championed the power of states to set their own rules on abortion will soon endorse one-size-fits-all national diktats.

Liberals will win that debate in the near-term once Roe goes, just because the GOP will have no opportunity to enact federal abortion policies until 2025 at the earliest. Gavin Newsom is getting a jump on the new normal:


Creating a state right to abortion is the tip of the iceberg. Newsom has previously touted California as a potential “sanctuary” for pregnant women in red states who can’t get an abortion at home. There’s even been talk of the state covering the cost of the trip to make the travel burden easier on those women.

Post-Roe, for the next three years at least, state politics will determine how widely available abortions are and aren’t to that state’s voters. Which means governor’s races could get spicy:


A traditional conservative argument for overturning Roe is that ceding abortion policy to the judiciary has made the issue more toxic than it should be. Supreme Court confirmations have become life-and-death political struggles. And pro-lifers have been thwarted in their democratic aspirations to set policies favored by majorities in red states, further embittering the debate. The way back towards harmony is to jettison Roe, return power to the states to make their own abortion laws, and let blue and red jurisdictions go their own ways.

I’ve gotta say, though: I’m not sensing much harmony lately around this subject. Ending Roe in the thick of a period of hot culture war seems more likely to further tear the social fabric than to repair it. *If* it were true that all sides accept a federalist solution in which blue states stay in their lane and red states stay in theirs and everyone minds their own business, that might lead to more comity on balance. Instead the early politics of the post-Roe era are a series of state-level policy moves that resemble an arms race, with blue and red states each trying to outwit the other’s efforts to thwart their agendas. Newsom’s overt ambition to make California an abortion mill for the entire country is a glaring example, but there are moves being made in red states too:

One [Missouri] measure sought to allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident obtain an abortion out of state, while also targeting efforts to provide medication abortion to residents. Another bill would apply Missouri’s abortion laws to abortions obtained out of state by Missouri residents and in other circumstances, including in cases where “sexual intercourse occurred within this state and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse.”…

Several states have outlawed telemedicine abortions and sending [abortifacient] pills by mail.

But some, like Texas, have gone further by contemplating how they’ll prosecute providers who seek to send in abortion pills from out of state. Texas last year expanded upon its existing prohibitions on mailing medication abortion pills by classifying the offense as the type of crime that would warrant extradition…

One statehouse Republican sent Citigroup a letter earlier this year demanding that the company end its policy — adopted in reaction to the six-week ban — of covering travel costs for employees seeking abortions out of state.

Blue states are making countermoves against those countermoves, with New York considering legislation to prevent the extradition of abortion providers to other states and Connecticut weighing a bill that would bar state agencies from assisting abortion investigations launched by pro-life states.

The post-Roe legal framework was supposed to be a matter of each state deciding whether abortions can or can’t lawfully be performed by providers within their own borders. Instead it’s shifting already towards whether a state’s residents can or can’t lawfully undergo an abortion anywhere, with pro- and anti-abortion jurisdictions playing legal chess with each other on that point. Abortion “undergrounds” are also springing up in which out-of-state providers remotely instruct women in states where abortion is likely to be banned on how to terminate a pregnancy using the drugs mifepristone and misoprostol. And of course, all of this wrangling will force SCOTUS to issue many more wrenching abortion-themed decisions in the future. Can a state penalize a resident for activity she engages in out of state? Can it compel the extradition of an abortion provider in another state? Can it penalize a local business if it funds travel for abortion?

Does any of this make it sound like the end of Roe means the end of America’s abortion wars?

Then there’s the question of what happens if and when Republicans regain total control of the federal government in 2025. The traditional claim that the point of overruling Roe is to re-empower the states is already headed out the window behind the scenes:

A group of Republican senators has discussed at multiple meetings the possibility of banning abortion at around six weeks, said Sen. James Lankford (Okla.), who was in attendance and said he would support the legislation. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) will introduce the legislation in the Senate, according to an antiabortion advocate with knowledge of the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy. Ernst did not respond to a request for comment.

One top advocate, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the antiabortion group Susan B. Anthony List, has spoken privately with 10 possible Republican presidential contenders, including former president Donald Trump, to talk through national antiabortion strategy. Most of them, she said in an interview, assured her they would be supportive of a national ban and would be eager to make that policy a centerpiece of a presidential campaign.

In an era when one’s chances at the Republican nomination depend on how far one is willing to go in owning the libs, it’s a mortal lock that the populists in the 2024 field will vow to pass federal legislation to limit the ability of states like California to perform abortions. The matter seems frankly tailor-made for someone like Ron DeSeantis, who was happy to abandon the right’s traditional opposition to crony capitalism in order to score a populist point on Disney. Abandoning the right’s traditional belief that abortion policy should be set at the state level would be child’s play by comparison, particularly since the moral case against abortion is so strong. Another traditional right-wing belief, that Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause should be circumscribed, will also go out the window once it comes time to draft federal legislation barring pregnant women from traveling across state lines for abortion.

Any such initiative will require a filibuster-proof Senate majority to pass, which is unlikely even given the rosy outlook for the GOP in 2022 and 2024. Which means if Mitch McConnell hasn’t started thinking yet about the pressure he’s destined to come under from the base to ditch the filibuster sometime very soon, he had better start.

By the way, longer-term, the end of Roe unfortunately won’t even free us from the SCOTUS confirmation wars over abortion. Not only will control of the Court continue to matter greatly in deciding which side wins in the interstate disputes over regulating abortion, some pro-lifers will soon begin to assert a new litmus test for conservative nominees, that they commit to believing there’s a right to life for unborn children in the 14th Amendment. Five votes for that right would make abortion illegal from coast to coast (without due process for the fetus, at least) and would amount to a total inversion of the Roe paradigm, with pro-lifers having now successfully made their issue a province of the judiciary beyond the reach of democratic majorities.

Eventually GOPers will overreach on all of this, going further than many Americans prefer and suffering a backlash at the polls because of it, but probably not before 2025. I bet DeSantis will start talking about a national ban next year, if not sooner.



In A Post-Christian West, Expect A Resurgence Of Violence, Brutality, And Oppression

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON at the Federalist:

MAY 03, 2022

Western civilization cannot survive cut off from its source in Christianity. We’re already getting a glimpse of what that will look like.

Author John Daniel Davidson profile


n a disturbing sequence early on in “The Northman,” Robert Eggers’s brutal new Viking revenge epic, a band of entranced berserker warriors raid a Rus village. The ensuing slaughter is depicted in realist detail. At one point the film’s protagonist, Amleth, played by Alexander Skarsgård, rips out an enemy’s throat with his teeth.

In the raid’s aftermath, everyone but a handful of adult villagers — deemed healthy enough to survive the winter as slaves — is rounded up and locked in a house, including the children. A pair of berserkers casually toss torches on the thatched roof as those trapped inside scream and beg for their lives. 

More or less the whole film is like that, and it’s not actually that fun to watch. But amid all the mud, smoke, butchery, and elaborately rendered scenes of pagan witchcraft, we get a harrowing glimpse of pre-Christian northern Europe. Whatever else Eggers is trying to do in “The Northman,” he makes no effort to gloss over the breathtaking violence and pitilessness of Viking culture.

In fact, it’s hard to sit through the film without feeling a sense of profound relief that Norse paganism was supplanted by Christianity. The Catholic monks who ventured into Scandinavia in the tenth century brought a radical new religion that proclaimed something revolutionary to the pagan mind: a loving God who made man in his image, conferring an inherent worth on every person, even the weak and powerless — slaves, women, children.

Eggers probably didn’t intend it, but “The Northman” is a powerful reminder that western civilization arose directly from Christianity, and depends on it for its vitality. Had the Catholic Church failed to convert Europe, the continent would have languished in paganism just as surely as the indigenous cultures of the Americas did. There would have been no St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas, no Magna Carta, no philosophy or theology, and no American Founding.

All of which to say: we are today living off the interest of Christianity, drawing from the deposit of faith that lifted the West out of paganism. Our civilization, with its insistence on individual rights and due process and enumerated powers and the rule of law, relies above all on a specifically Christian understanding of man and society and the cosmos. That’s what John Adams meant, for example, when he said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

To note this is also to admit what by now should be obvious: the interest is running out. We are no longer “a moral and religious People,” and there is a real danger that without Christianity our civilization, along with our system of government, will atrophy and die.

That is not to say we will revert to pre-Christian paganism, to berserker raids on hapless villages and the demonic rituals of pagan seers. But post-Christian societies will begin to lose those ideas and principles that made western civilization distinct from the rest of the world, and all that had come before — things like freedom of speech and conscience, inalienable rights, the equality of man, the consent of the governed.

Indeed, this process is already underway. Consider just one example from back in February, before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, when the world’s attention was fixed on Canada, of all places. There, under the guise of health and safety, a supposedly liberal government carried out an unprecedented and terrifying crackdown on peaceful protesters and their families.

Nothing could have better illustrated the corruption and decay of a once-tolerant and free society. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the epitome of an enlightened liberal, showed us what sort of tolerance we can expect from post-Christian liberal governments in the West.

Peaceful protesters were not just arrested, their bank accounts were seized, assets frozen, and legal defense funds locked down. They were told their livelihoods would be taken from them, their trucks and licenses confiscated. At one point, government bureaucrats threatened to take their children if they did not comply. The message from Trudeau’s government was clear: shut up and go home, cease your protesting, or we won’t just arrest you, we will ruin you utterly.

I thought of those Canadian families as I read an essay by Francis Fukuyama in this past weekend’s Wall Street Journal about how the world is “clearly evolving toward equality and freedom,” and that despite some setbacks, liberalism will win out in the end. He waves away the massive counterfactual of communist China, where a decidedly illiberal modern civilization has taken root, and tries to console his readers with empty platitudes about history’s “progress toward justice.”

Nowhere in his long essay, though, does Fukuyama even once mention Christianity’s role in creating and sustaining the liberal principles he thinks will somehow endure on their own. Either he does not know or refuses to admit that our entire conception of justice and freedom springs from the Christian religion, without which they become merely justifications for rule by brute force.

His error — an error shared by all our liberal elites — is to attribute the success of western civilization to the progressive improvement of human nature and the advances of modern technology. But human nature has not improved. It is fixed and fallen, and that will never change. We are all, in a way, berserkers. We always have been.

But Christianity gave us a way out through the passion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christianity heralded the possibility of the redemption of our fallen natures and conversion to “a more excellent way,” the way of love, which is Christ and His Kingdom. Whatever progress we have achieved since then is a result of that more excellent way. If we abandon it, as we are now doing, what awaits us is a post-Christian civilization every bit as brutal and violent and unjust as the pre-Christian world of “The Northman.”

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist.