WATCH: Justice Amy Coney Barrett Savagely Owns Pro-Abortion Communist

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett reacted to a pro-abortion protestor cutting her off during an appearance at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library by noting she has 7 kids and is well accustomed to “distractions and sometimes even outbursts.”

Justice Barrett was discussing the aggressive media security throughout her election when the protester, later on, recognized as Luna Hernandez of the Revolutionary Communist Party, started shouting from the crowd.

“Amy Coney Barrett, you are an enslaver of women,” the communist yelled, disrupting the event.

“As a mother of seven, I am used to distractions — and sometimes even outbursts,” Barrett reacted, appearing to laugh it off.

In a press release about the demonstration, Hernandez called Justice Barrett’s response “infantilizing.”.

“Women are not children. When I said that forced motherhood is female enslavement, I was not having a ‘childish outburst,’” she said in the press release published by the Revolutionary Communist Party’s sub-group “RiseUp4AbortionRights.”

The Supreme Court will rapidly be ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which directly challenge Roe v. Wade– the option that made abortion legal on a federal level.

Pro-life activists have really been passionate that the conservative-majority court will vote to reverse the 1973 choice.

In a 2020 dissenting viewpoint, Justice Clarence Thomas made up, “Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled.”

He explained,

“Roe is grievously wrong for many reasons, but the most fundamental is that its core holding—that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to abort her unborn child—finds no support in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. Roe suggests that the Due Process Clause’s reference to “liberty” could provide a textual basis for its novel privacy right. Ibid. But that Clause does not guarantee liberty qua liberty. Rather, it expressly contemplates the deprivation of liberty and requires only that such deprivations occur through “due process of law.” Amdt. 14, §1. As I have previously explained, there is “‘considerable historical evidence support[ing] the position that “due process of law” was [originally understood as] a separation-of-powers concept . . . forbidding only deprivations not authorized by legislation or common law.’”

Throughout a hearing in December, Justice Barrett mentioned stare decisis was not an “inexorable command” which, “there are some circumstances in which overruling is possible.”

Justice Kavanaugh has actually similarly appeared “sympathetic” to the view that abortion issues are best entrusted to the states, according to a report from The Hill.

H/T Timcast

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Previous Article

We Are Slowly LOSING Our Country Little By Little...

Next Article

School District Receives Backlash for Using This Term

Related Posts