Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

It is said that a broken clock is right twice a day.  If that be the truth, then the Supreme Court has a worse track record than a broken clock.  Yesterdays judicial offerings from the nation’s highest court could be used as the perfect argument as The Supreme Court broke even on their decisions involving abortion and gun rights.  While the Court may have batted .500, what is even more interesting is the reactions of proponents and foes on both rulings.  While the Court may have been guilty of the “broken clock syndrome”, the reactions of proponents and foes can be labeled as “Pavlov’s Dog”.

The swing and miss by the court (Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt) involved a piece of legislature from Texas which would require that abortion clinics have hospital admitting privileges and also required abortion clinics to maintain the same level of sanitary conditions that hospital surgery and ER rooms are required.  The court ruled, erroneously, that to do so would place an undue burden on the clinics thus depriving women of abortion services.  Those justices who made up the majority must have slept through the Kermit Gosnell case.  Besides being found guilty of killing three innocents in the womb, the case also brought out his clinic’s sanitary conditions:

“Authorities said the clinic was a foul-smelling “house of horrors” with bags and bottles of stored fetuses, including jars of severed feet, along with bloodstained furniture, dirty medical instruments, and cats roaming the premises.”

The reaction of the pro-abortion feminists after the rulings were announced are the same ones they always use when abortion is challenged.  They said it was a victory for a woman’s reproductive rights and the Supreme Court was the savior of abortion.  Forget about whether an abortion might be performed in an unsanitary clinic like Gosnell’s, as long as the woman can get an abortion, who cares.  Forget about the possibility of infection or death from unsanitary conditions, closing down unsafe and unsanitary clinics would force women, according to Justice Ginsberg, to seek unlicensed doctors in unsafe places.  According to the feminazis, any attack on abortion, either real or not, must be stopped, even if it risks the very same people they pretend to support.

The next case is a bit tricky, which makes me surprised the Court got it right.  It involved two men (Voisine vs.United States) who had both been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, who were found guilty under Title 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) of the possession of a weapons.   Somehow these two modern stone age men both felt that they should not lose their 2nd Amendment rights because their domestic violence convictions could have been reckless and not knowingly or with the intention.  I guess you would have to be a lawyer to try to explain what difference it would make.  Sounds like a little bit of nitpicking to me.  I guess it sounded that way to the Court too because they rejected the argument.

Maybe the reason the Court rejected the idea was, like most rational, sane adults, they could see the big picture.  Domestic violence is an equal opportunity employer.  It affects everyone regardless of sex, race, color or religious affiliation.  The breadcrumb trail is always the same: starts out with some form of physical violence and ends up with someone dead by gun.  How many times have we picked up the newspaper or heard on TV that a man shot and killed his wife or girlfriend?  How many times have we learned later on the the man had been physically brutalizing said wife or girlfriend for many years before he decided to end her life?

Rather than applauding this ruling, 2nd Amendment supporters went into the same knee jerk reaction that the pro abortionists did.  They decried the ruling as possibly being to vague or that it could be applied arbitrarily.  They in fact have been creating outlandish scenarios in which a person could lose their right to purchase or have a firearm.  I would submit to these people that they have more to fear from the government’s “No Fly List ” than they do from the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Pavlov’s dog was conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell.  Pro-abortionists have been conditioned to raise their hackles and vomit nonsense simply at the mention of the word “abortion”.  It doesn’t matter if it risks the lives of the women that they say they want to protect, as long as abortion remains untouched.  The same holds true with the pro-gun advocates.  Any action, even one meant to protect, that is taken against guns is deemed as gun control and anti-2nd Amendment.  Maybe it is time both parties quit drooling every time the bell is rung and start using some common sense.


iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?