U.S. Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch: ‘A Fetus Is Not a Person’ Under the Law

WASHINGTON — During his second day of questioning for his Senate confirmation hearing, Trump U.S. Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch said that he accepts Roe v. Wade as the “law of the land” and its opinion that a “fetus is not a person.”

On Wednesday, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked Gorsuch about a sentence in his book “The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia,” in which he concluded that “[a]ll human beings are intrinsically valuable, and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong.”

“How could you square that statement with legal abortion?” Durbin inquired.

Gorsuch, currently a judge with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, posited that abortion is different because the unborn are not legally recognized as people.

“Senator, as the book explains, the Supreme Court of the United States has held in Roe v. Wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment—and that book explains that,” Gorsuch replied.

“Do you accept that?” Durbin asked.

“That’s the law of the land. I accept the law of the land, Senator, yes,” Gorsuch answered firmly.

  • Connect with Christian News

As previously reported, on Tuesday, Gorsuch told Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley that he believes Roe v. Wade is precedent and has been repeatedly reaffirmed, and that “a good judge” should treat it accordingly.

“I think the case most people are thinking about right now and the case that every nominee gets asked about [is] Roe v. Wade. Can you tell me whether Roe was decided correctly?” Grassley asked.

“Senator, … I would tell you that Roe versus Wade, decided in 1973, is the precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed,” Gorsuch replied emphatically. “The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered.”

“It is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992, and in several other cases,” he repeated. “So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

When asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to expound on his views regarding precedent, he explained that “once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law.”

“What was once a hotly contested issue is no longer a hotly contested issue. We move forward,” Gorsuch said.

Feinstein then inquired if he considers Roe v. Wade to be “super-precedent,” meaning that it is so ingrained into the legal system that it would be significantly difficult to overturn.

“It has been reaffirmed 44 times. I can say that,” Gorsuch, known for ruling in favor of the popular craft chain Hobby Lobby, replied.

Hoefling

While some have stated that Gorsuch had to answer in such a manner in order to be confirmed, 2016 America’s Party presidential candidate Tom Hoefling wrote on social media on Thursday that those who claim the name of Christ should proclaim truth no matter the cost.

“The way I look at it, no job is worth having for which you have to hitch your wagon to genocide, and dehumanize tens of millions of innocent little boys and girls, and defy God and nature and the Constitution, and support a coup d’etat by pretending that we live in a judicial oligarchy instead of in a free constitutional republic,” he said.

Hoefling pointed to Christ’s words in Mark 8:36, “For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”

“A wink and a nod for the continued mass murder of millions, tens of millions, of little boys and girls is required for confirmation,” he lamented. “A wink and a nod for the continued destruction of the natural family, the way God created it, is now required.”

“The founders of this republic wouldn’t recognize what these people have created,” Hoefling added. “It’s a national disgrace. And it is going to destroy us, and our posterity, if we don’t combat and defeat it.”

As previously reported, Gorsuch is an Episcopalian, and attends St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado. St. John’s identifies itself as “inclusive” on its website and is led by female minister Susan Springer. In 2013, Springer expressed her support for same-sex “marriage.”

Many Christians stated that their primary reason for voting for Trump as president was because they believed he would appoint justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Some had remarked that they desired a judge similar to the late Antonin Scalia.

Scalia, however, noted during his tenure that he opposed both the complete abolition of abortion, as well as requiring legalization. He said that the Constitution does not require a state to ban abortion as he believes the 14th Amendment only applies to those who have been born.

“I will strike down Roe v. Wade, but I will also strike down a law that is the opposite of Roe v. Wade,” Scalia outlined in a 2002 Pew Forum. “You know, both sides in that debate want the Supreme Court to decide the matter for them. One [side] wants no state to be able to prohibit abortion and the other one wants every state to have to prohibit abortion, and they’re both wrong.”

“And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the equal protection clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that’s still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that’s wrong,” Scalia further explained in a 2008 “60 Minutes” interview. “I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • InTheChurch

    Great pick Trump

  • Cindy Frazier

    If the fetus is not considered a person for abortion purposes, why then are criminals who commit murder charged with 2 counts when they murder a pregnant woman? Shouldn’t the same considerations apply there also. So, basically, when the pregnancy is not wanted, the fetus is not a person; but when the pregnancy is wanted, the fetus is a person. Doesn’t make any sense to me. Abortion is nothing more than overpriced birth/population control. The fetus is a person, and those who perform abortions are committing legalized murder.

    • Tangent002

      It depends on the state whether or not it is called homicide or feticide, but the death of the fetus is always an adjunct charge to the crime committed against the woman.

    • RWH

      While a fetus is not considered a person, it is still the property of the woman. If someone damages her property, a woman has the right to sue. However, the woman should have complete control over what is hers.

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        “However, the woman should have complete control over what is hers.”

        Thanks for publicly displaying that those women who had babies and threw them in the trashcan after birth were justified in doing so.

        Thanks for publicly displaying that those women who drowned their children, some up to the age of 5, were justified in doing so.

        Thank God you’ve hopefully have never been elected to public office!

        • RWH

          Is this the only strategy that you have for winning arguments? Attributing things to people that they never said? I have discovered over the years that people in professional organizations have tend to have a much better ethical standard than people in fundamentalist organizations. They learn to disagree respectfully. They tend to stick to the facts and to the research. They don’t go personal with slimy, personal attacks. They don’t go out for dirty, hurtful attacks that accomplish nothing other than to raise tempers and cause bad blood that can last for years.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Unlike you, I’m not here to win arguments. I didn’t attribute anything to you that you didn’t say. Let me help you, you said and I quote, “the woman should have complete control over what is hers.”

            As for the rest, is that the only strategy that you have for winning arguments? Insinuations, innuendos, and ad hominem?

          • RWH

            Royce, May I suggest that you read your comments again. They were a direct frontal attack, and an unethical one at that. You attributed ideas to me that I never made. That is dishonest, reprehensible behavior. In other words, if you have no logical defense, it’s okay to fight dirty. And the fact that you’re stating that you’re not here to win arguments is a downright lie.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I don’t deny that they were a direct frontal attack on what you said – NOT you. And I don’t apologize for that. I don’t come from behind. But there was nothing “unethical” about the.

            I quote you again, “”the woman should have complete control over what is hers.” So what I said is accurate. It falls directly within what you said. The fact I pointed out the fallacy in your logic and reason is your problem. Not mine.

            Characterize it as you will but there is NOTHING “dishonest” about them. And what is “reprehensible” is that you would make such a claim in the first place.

            As for your calling my truth a lie, well, that’s just another reflection on your faux omniscience and I suggest you get over your god-complex.

          • Shane Egan

            Sorry, your ‘argument’ was related to children, not the unborn and therefore irrelevant and an unsuccessful attempt to play the shock and horror slippery slope card. Another sign of the fundamentalist, like you is the inability to recognise when they are wrong and correct their behaviour.

            Well said RWH.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Sorry, but you don’t get to define what my argument was. My argument stands on what I said in direct response to what RWH said. RWH did NOT state ANYTHING about the “unborn”. Evidently you can’t read either so I doubt repeating it here will help but I will anyways. RWH said, “the woman should have complete control over what is hers.”

            THAT would include children of ANY age. As for assigning motives to me, drop the faux omniscience and get over your god-complex too.

            Yes, I am a Fundamentalist and proud of it!!!! Ya don’t get anymore Fundamental than Jesus Christ so thank you VERY much! The compliment is MUCH appreciated.

            As for one correcting their behavior, you weren’t the one being addressed in the first place so maybe you should correct your behavior and butt out. While you’re at it, take a chainsaw to the Sequoia Tree in your eye.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            “Sorry, but you don’t get to define what my argument was.”

            Then why do you get to define what everybody else’s argument is?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Well I guess when you don’t have an answer…

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Well, your guesses would be wrong just like everything else you say on here.

            Congratulations! You’ve won another Plato Award.

            “Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something” – Plato

            Here’s my answer for you: Matthew 7:6

          • RWH

            Unless you feel that you have a Biblical mandate to dominate and subjugate women, the woman has control over her own body just as you have control over your own body. That does not give you the right to control the bodies of other people. I never even hinted that I am omniscient nor a “god-complex.” Can I assume that you feel that it is appropriate to bear false witness and tell outright lies about others?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            What would you know about the Bible? I have a Biblical mandate to speak the Truth. If you see that as dominating and subjugating women, that’s your problem not mine.

            Now, factually speaking the woman does not have the right to do whatever she wants with unlimited control over her body. Not by Man’s Law and NEVER by God’s Law. Moreover, the baby she is carrying is NOT her body. The baby has it’s own body.

            “I never even hinted that I am omniscient nor a “god-complex.”

            Yes, you most certainly did. That you cannot see that is not surprising though.

            Yes, you can. Now tell me where I bore false witness and told an outright lie. You can’t. Certainly not in what you accused me of before because I pointed out your words said exactly what they did.

          • RWH

            Well, unless God came down and anointed you as was done to Elijah and the other prophets, you can’t claim to speak “THE TRUTH.” All you can do is to claim that you speak what you personally interpret as the truth. All reading is an act of interpretation. And if you believe that I claimed omniscience and to speak for God, you have a greater reading problem than I originally thought.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for publicly displaying you have no idea what God says, no idea what it means to be a Christian, no idea what the word “ambassador” means, and no idea that EVERY Believer has been anointed as a prophet of God.

            Anyone who ever speaks for God either does so as a true prophet or a false prophet.

            And no, that’s not all I can do. I have been commissioned by Jesus Christ as His ambassador so I can do a whole lot more that what you say. Thank God for that!

            “All reading is an act of interpretation.”knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.” (2nd Peter 1:20)

            No, the greater problem is the Giant Sequoia Tree stuck in your eye socket that prevents you from seeing your sins. Those with eyes to see can see and understand that ONLY God could say, “And the fact that you’re stating that you’re not here to win arguments is a downright lie” and know whether that’s a fact. And since it’s not and it’s a lie, I can be assured that God hasn’t seen fit to share His omniscience with you so it is a faux omniscience and god-complex.

          • RWH

            Royce, your beliefs that everyone has been anointed as a prophet of God is not shared by the rest of the church. There are gifts given to believers, but not everyone has been called to preach. The Church has recognized some with this gift and bestowed upon them ordination. However, nowhere in Scripture does God give every believer the type of prophetic ministry that was given to Elijah or the other anointed ones. There is not one conservative theologian that I know of that holds your view. It is not held by the church at large either now or historically. From the attitude that you are taking, I doubt whether you have had any formal theological training either from a Bible College or a seminary.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Never said anything about the Gift of Prophecy. I said “prophet”. And I never said anything about Preaching. And that IS shared by The Church and I’d hope most Believers. Priests bring the People to God and Prophets bring God to the People.

            I suggest you get into a good Bible-believing church where you can submit to godly men as commanded who can properly disciple you.

            Maybe then you’ll stop telling your lies and actually know what is held by the church at large and historically.

            And, as I’ve said more times than I can shake a stick at, all one has to do these days is a simple Google search. There really is NO excuse for such Biblical ignorance. Do that and you’ll quickly find out just how wrong you are about your claim of no conservative theologian that I know of that holds your view. That is unless you’re just completely oblivious of many well-known conservative theologians.

          • RWH

            Royce, I don’t think that you understand what the word and the office of prophet entails. What I do understand is that you feel that you alone possess the truth. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be telling me to submit to godly men and be discipled. I don’t think that you know a whole lot about church history either. If you did, you wouldn’t credit the office of priest as bringing people to God. Priests are intermediaries between the people and God. That’s why the concept of the priesthood of all believers evolved. It is a concept held by both the Catholic and Orthodox churches. It wasn’t a concept that was discovered after the Protestant Reformation. However, priests are ordained to administer the sacraments to the people of God. I could probably cite church fathers and church councils, but I don’t have the time to look them up, and I don’t think that you would accept them. However, your arrogance is revealing.

            For starters, you need to learn how to debate respectfully. To handle disagreement by telling people that they need to go under godly men is insulting and accomplishes nothing but generating bad blood. I have tried to answer you in a respectful manner. I never called your salvation into question. However, you have chosen not to respond in a kind manner. Since you take such a demeaning tone, I don’t see any purpose in continuing this conversation.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I don’t think you understand I’m not talking about the OT “office” of Prophet. I also don’t you understand that simple English when I defined what the words priest and prophet (notice NOT caps!) mean. And I told you that you could go to a simple Google search and find those “conservative theologians” saying the same thing!

            Now you wanna come back with the person jabs. Typical. What you don’t understand is that YOU are the one who isn’t God nor evidently the English language either.

            “What I do understand is that you feel that you alone possess the truth.”

            First of all that’s a lie so you don’t understand squat. Second of all your god-complex has led you into sin again. And third, if one did think that it would NOT be a “feeling”! Duh!

            “Otherwise, you wouldn’t be telling me to submit to godly men and be discipled.”

            Again, another lie. I’d “otherwise” be telling you that because that is what God says. It is a COMMAND from God.

            “I don’t think that you know a whole lot about church history either.”

            Based on what you’ve said thus far just in this thread not to mention previously, what you think is hardly of any concern or credibility.

            For starters I’m not here to debate you. Your taking the Word of God as an insult and disrespectful is your characterization and on you and you alone. That’s your problem.

            But you are right about one thing. There is no purpose in continuing this conversation. Wasn’t one to begin with.

            Now you can go back to preaching more about murdering babies and women having control over their own bodies (Hmmm, I wonder if that’s an OT or NT concept?? Ooops, it’s NOT either.) and tout your seminary training and knowledge of church history all the while doing Satan’s bidding, twisting God’s Word, and practicing lawlessness.

          • RWH

            It’s always interesting to watch people go into an hysterical frenzy, sparks flying everywhere, and smoke coming out of every extremity until they finally explode in a million pieces. Everything I said about your attitude in my previous post, you demonstrated with your answer. May I make a suggestion? Why don’t you get your theology from reputable sources rather than from the covers of comic books?

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            That right there folks is what one would call a Giant Sequoia Tree sticking outta your eye socket! LOL

            “sparks flying everywhere, and smoke coming out of every extremity until they finally explode in a million pieces.” Oh yeah, no “hysterical frenzy” there! LOL

            Just give ’em enough time, the Posers always reveal themselves.

            “Why don’t you get your theology from reputable sources rather than from the covers of comic books?”

            I’ll take that while considering the source and all the credibility you’ve shown. LOL

      • brisonc3

        But the Constitution has outlawed the entire concept of one human owning another. One human being cannot hold another as property. That is the basic principal of the anti-slavery amendments to the Constitution. Children are not property of their parents, but are wards of them. Parents are their rightful guardians unless evidence is shown of abuse or neglect at which time law enforcement can remove the children from a parent’s authority. Women or men do not own their children so do not have full control or authority over them to the point of demanding their death simply to have a perception of a better life.

        • 1luisa

          That was an awesome response. We also know that the courts don’t make law yet the American people don’t care. Courts are for getting your way and not presiding. It was the branch of government the framers knew had the potential to go rogue. It has.

        • getstryker

          brisonc3 – it is unfortunate that you have chosen to go ‘Private’ in your profile. Comments like yours and perhaps others that you have made on other articles could help shed light on whatever subjects you might comment on. The comment above was quite enlightening . . . I had not thought of it that way before. – Please consider changing it so you can be ‘followed’. Thank you.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Says the former fetus.

  • tedlickb

    Wow… didn’t see that coming! Cool!

  • Amos Moses

    CHRIST-LESS CONSERVATISM:Christians stand on principles. Conservatives lay down with harlots. Any questions as to which group is running our government? ………..

    as i said …. this is a battle that will not be won in the courts ……. nor should it ….

    Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    • RWH

      Be very careful what you wish for. People are fighting battles over the court appealing to Sharia law. Appealing to this type of law is the same as appealing to Biblical law. Judges rule on the constitution, not religious documents. A fetus does not have legal rights until it is born. It might seem unfair, but think of the mess we would have if it did. Women could be charged with all sorts of things. Miscarriage or a deformity is just the tip of the iceberg. What did the woman do that caused this?. Did she smoke? Did she drink that can of beer? Did she not get enough sleep? Should she have been working out at a club? Should she have quit her job? Did she do some heavy lifting?

      • Amos Moses

        coming from a person so in rebellion to christianity …. that is really laughable … this is what you are fighting for …. a “secular” society ….. got news for you bub ….. nature abhors a vacuum ….. YOU are one of those that want that ….. Christ is going to give you your wish …. you are not going to like a Christless ‘Merica …. and what fills that vacuum is not going to be to your liking ….. a religion will fill it ………. this is what you have been seeking ….. DEAL WITH IT …………

        • RWH

          There is a really ugly element out there within fundamentalism that doesn’t like to think. Rather, they take the easy way out by hopping on God’s throne so that they can pronounce curses upon people with impunity. Sorry, Amos, you don’t get a free pass to spew out your hate by ducking behind a Bible.

          • Amos Moses

            “hopping on God’s throne so that they can pronounce curses upon people with impunity”

            i have no power to do so ….. this is YOUR wish list …. it is YOUR pronouncement ….. and YOU do it with supposed impunity ….. DEAL WITH YOUR CHOICE ……….

          • RWH

            But that is exactly what you are doing when you tell people that Christ is going to give them their wish. You have no idea what I wish for. However, I do know the evils when one religious group gets to impose its dictates upon a civilization. it doesn’t matter what the group. They will enforce their dictates, and woe unto the person who doesn’t follow them. I have worked with Ukrainian Pentacostals who had to leave their homeland because they were persecuted for establishing religion apart from the Orthodox Church. It’s better to have no religious establishment than to be forced to attend meetings where Hindu prayers are said Hindu. Or wouldn’t you mind it if your children were made to recite the Rosary at the beginning of the school day. That is exactly what would happen if you lived in a northern state and the majority of the population were Catholic.

          • brisonc3

            “However, I do know the evils when one religious group gets to impose its dictates upon a civilization. ” Would you say this about Baptist Minister Martin Luther King Jr. who sought to impose his religious view of racial equality onto the nation at large using secular law to do it?

            Somehow I don’t think any liberal finds an issue with this when it’s a cause they happen to agree with a religious crusader. It was perfectly fine with liberals to have racial equality and the millions of a religious pursuasion who demanded it, putting their religious views into law.

            So it is hardly sinister or evil or draconian when you have a mix of religious and secular minded people in the millions that say human equality and the Constitutions mandate of it be broadened to include a previously excluded segment of the human family that has been denied the recognition and protection of the Constitution. This is what liberals and progressives have preached for centuries. So how is that some horrible imposition if it wasn’t any time in the past?

          • RWH

            And exactly what laws did Martin Luther King Jr. attempt to pass? There were a lot of black clergy leading the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Other than the civil rights act of 1964, which was certainly not authored by Martin Luther King Jr., what do you have in mind?

          • Amos Moses

            this WAS YOUR PRONOUNCEMENT …….

            “People are fighting battles over the court appealing to Sharia law. Appealing to this type of law is the same as appealing to Biblical law. ”

            DEAL WITH IT ……………….

      • meamsane

        “Judges rule on the constitution….”

        The sad part about this is that you and so many others in this country really believe that we still live in a Constitutional Republic!!

        • RWH

          You’re always welcome to introduce case studies and show us exactly where the constitution was violated. Line by line citations are gratefully appreciated.

      • Reason2012

        think of the mess we would have if it did. Women could be charged with all sorts of things.

        Yes, what a mess to be charged with k illing a human being when you k ill a human being.
        But what about the “mess” of all the sons and daughters who have been sacrificed on the altar of personal convenience?
        The only people who are FOR abortion are those who were not k illed by one.

        • RWH

          Why provide a solid argument when a hackneyed cliche will do nicely. Only an insensitive man will trivialize one of the most agonizing decisions that a woman will make. There may be some women who have done things out of convenience; however, the women I know spent a bit of time weighing the options and talking to their husbands or significant others. There are others who joke, trivialize the plight of others, are dismissive, and sometimes downright ugly and judgmental. And then they scratch their heads and wonder why their churches are hemorrhaging members.

          • Reason2012

            Why provide a solid argument when a hackneyed cliche will do nicely. Only an insensitive man will trivialize one of the most agonizing decisions that a woman will make. There may be some women who have done things out of convenience; however, the women I know spent a bit of time weighing the options and talking to their husbands or significant others. There are others who joke, trivialize the plight of others, are dismissive, and sometimes downright ugly and judgmental. And then they scratch their heads and wonder why their churches are hemorrhaging members.

            That they are k illing another human being IS a solid argument. That you think k illing another human being is not a solid argument only shows how deceptive you’re being. That you trivialize it as if it’s ok as long as they “think” about it or “agonize” over it is a joke at best and quite evil to pretend that justifies it.

            Doesn’t make it ok just because they “agonize” over it before they k ill their son / daughter.
            Doesn’t make it ok just because they “weighed the options” over it before they k ill their son / daughter.
            Doesn’t make it ok just because they “talked to their husbands” about it before they k ill their son / daughter.

            If they do not want another son / daughter, they should “agonize” or “weigh the options” or “talk to their husbands” before they have s ex – not instead pretend those reactions make it ok to cut their son /daughter to pieces.

            And no one who’s truly a born again believer in God, who knows we’ll all be facing God for our actions, would dare k ill their own son/daughter. So those that are “hemorrhaging” out of following God and go on to k ill their own son / daughter are merely showing they were never saved to begin with.

            If someone has been deceived into k illing their son / daughter, they have sincere repentance and sincere begging God for mercy and spend the rest of their lives in evidence of this (as opposed to just saying it but not really meaning it) by following God, teaching others to not be deceived by the lies of pro-death activists, He will hear them and can offer forgiveness and healing – but to pretend it’s ok to k ill your son/daughter as long as you “agonize” first or “weigh the option” first or “talk with their husband” first is evil promoting evil and anyone that teaches those lies will answer to God for the evil they helped promote.

          • RWH

            Thank you for proving my point. This lack of compassion and understanding is the exact thing that empties churches. People who have some serious issues to deal with don’t want to be around people who do nothing more than to stir up whatever stress they are going through. Having worked at two fundamentalist colleges and attended a number of “fundamentalist” churches, I noticed that these people with serious problems are either disciplined out or driven out of the church through uncompromising, judgmental attitudes rather than helped. As a result, it’s the secular organizations who clean up whatever messes these people make for themselves and those whom they love.

          • brisonc3

            Agony is not an acceptable motive for committing homicide of a child. If agony is an acceptable defense of homicide then why not sexual assault? I’m sure there are many men in prison who would say “my decision to commit the act that I did was done with great forethought and agony before I did it. It was a very personal and private decision among me and my God and those close to me.”

            Sound kosher? In the end it isn’t about the agony of the assailant, but the one being assaulted. The target of the attach should be the focus, but the abortion rights crowd always wants to steer attention and empathy from the intended victim of the assault to the attacker and how “agonizing” the decision to attack is.

            Our laws exist to protect victims, not defend the actions of assailants and attackers, yet the pro-choice crowd wants to turn that predisposition on it’s head, which needs serious questioning.

          • RWH

            Since you trivialize the types of heart-wrenching decisions that a woman must make and compare them to hardened criminals, may I assume that you don’t respect women? I know a lot of women who would dump you on your head with your type of disrespectful attitude. I saw too much of this “Me Tarzan; you Jane” mentality when I associated with the fundamentalists. Pastors would stand there and make fun of their wives as they preached their sermons, and the men of the congregation thought it was cute and funny.

  • Anes11

    He did not say that was his personal belief. He said that is the law. It would be foolish in a confirmation hearing to get into abortion arguments.

  • Victoria Martin

    Wow, looks like he is wimping out on his own conscience. Do we want a judge who denies his conscience in favor of the law, however wrong that law is? We’ve got plenty of judges who will do that in the lower courts. That’s how the innocent keep getting victimized by our laws. If that’s all we can expect in the Supreme Court, why do we need one at all?

    • Chris

      The courts do NOT have a right to decide something based on their conscience. They decide a case based on the law as it stands and precedent.

      You ask “Do we want a judge who denies his conscience in favor of the law, however wrong that law is”

      Well yes we do. What if you were guilty of crossing against the lights and got a judge who’s conscience told him to hang you? Fortunately the law would eliminate the possibility of such a sentence being passed. Good thing hey?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    God says that a fetus is a person. His child.

    • RWH

      Chapter and verse please. The word fetus and child must be used, not a loose interpretation.

    • Shane Egan

      He also said rabbits chew their cud. Sometimes the Bible is just plainly wrong or contradictory. It is neither science, nor the law in the U.S.

      • C_Alan_Nault

        God Bless You

      • Omnicopy

        Verse?

        • Chris

          Leviticus 11: 6 “The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a divided hoof; it is unclean for you.”

          • Omnicopy

            Then it must chew cud! Don’t know anything about bunnies

          • Chris

            Sorry but they do NOT chew cud. They rechew their own food but rabbits do NOT chew cud. Likewise the Sun does NOT go round the Earth even IF the bible says it does.

          • Omnicopy

            Same thing! You do something typical of a person who has spirits. You go thru the bible looking for stuff you think you can prove wrong. A person who has spirits like doubt and contradictions will do that. Just saying. I know the signs.

          • Chris

            “Same thing!”

            No it isn’t. Bringing your food up again so you can gain more sustenance from it is not the same thing as eating your own excrement.

            “You do something typical of a person who has spirits.”

            Think? Use facts and logic?

            “You go thru the bible looking for stuff you think you can prove wrong.”

            Actually no. When I went through the bible I was a born again believer. I just remember what I found. Then I studied the bible at university.

            “A person who has spirits like doubt and contradictions will do that.”

            So will someone who uses logic. Indeed so did Paul “test all things. Hold fast to that which is good.” 1 Thess 5: 21

          • Omnicopy

            I don’t give two hoots for bible colleges! You probably went from a fake church to a fake bible college, most people are! If you are going to try and understand everything you read in the bible good luck to you! Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own understanding. I’ve been reading the bible for almost 60 years with the Holy Spirit and I still don’t understand it all.

          • Chris

            “I don’t give two hoots for bible colleges!”

            I didn’t go to one. I went to a university.

            “You probably went from a
            fake church to a fake bible college, most people are!”

            Really? Evidence?

            “If you are going
            to try and understand everything you read in the bible good luck to you!”

            Thank you.

            “Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own
            understanding.”

            The end of that quote is “in all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy path”.

            “I’ve been reading the bible for almost 60 years with the
            Holy Spirit and I still don’t understand it all.”

            May I make a suggestion? The first step in understanding any ancient text is to put it into its historical context. That means understanding the problems and world that the writers were facing. Two very good books I can recommend is “Testament” by John Romer and “Joshua: The Man They Called Jesus” by Ian Jones.

  • Reason2012

    Please cite the law where it’s ok to k ill a human being but not ok to k ill a person.
    Hitler did the same thing: convince everyone a Jewish man or Jewish woman was not really “a person” – and the evil genocide ensued. No wonder God’s judgment has been hitting America.

    • RWH

      Would you like to show us exactly how this judgment has manifested itself?

  • Royce E. Van Blaricome

    Let all those who trumpeted Trump as the “lesser of two evils” and a “must vote for because of SCOTUS appointments” now come back just as ardently and fervently with their public confession and repentance.

    • Reason2012

      The only two choices that God gave us this time around was Trump and Hillary. Hillary was flat out PRO-abortion. Please don’t pretend things would have been fine if we let that criminal of mafia-proportions be president instead. And voting for those third parties that will not win only lets Hillary win, so it’s a joke to pretend that was the “better” option..

      God knows our hearts that we want a born again believer in God leading our country – He’s not done completely judging us yet, so only allowed us to backpedal enough to get someone like Trump. So we keep praying.

      2 Chronicles 7:14 “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

      James 5:16 “.. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        I’d suggest you don’t blame God for the choices of sinful men. God gave us NEITHER of them. That was all on unfaithful, disobedient, and rebellious men. MANY of whom profess to be Christian and chose to be a citizen of this kingdom rather than a Citizen of The Kingdom. Sounds like you were one of them.

        “And voting for those third parties that will not win only lets Hillary win, so it’s a joke to pretend that was the “better” option.”

        Thanks for showing that you believe God’s Word is a joke. At least we can all see where you come from. Given your handle, it’s understandable, but perhaps a little meditation on Prov. 3:5-7 and Prov. 14:12 would be helpful.

        “He’s not done completely judging us yet, so only allowed us to backpedal enough to get someone like Trump.”

        How nice it must be to have God confiding in you in such a way. Do tell us PLEASE when the time comes that He’s done judging us.

        And the next time you decide to quote 2nd Chron. 7:14, you might wanna do a little study first on what it means to humble yourself, seek His face, and turn from your wicked ways. Here’s a little clue: That and Matt. 6:33 don’t include pragmatism and doing what you think is best by choosing the lesser of two evils. A Christian voting for Trump outta self-preservation and national security was just the opposite.

        • Reason2012

          I’d suggest you don’t blame God for the choices of sinful men. God gave us NEITHER of them. That was all on unfaithful, disobedient, and rebellious men.

          Daniel 2:20-21 “Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:”

          God makes it clear He is the one that raises up leaders (even to judge nations) and takes leaders down. All throughout the Bible God raised up leaders to deliver the Israelites, and God raised up leaders to judge them.

          MANY of whom profess to be Christian and chose to be a citizen of this kingdom rather than a Citizen of The Kingdom. Sounds like you were one of them.

          Matthew 7:1-2 “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

          God knows we want a born again believer in God to lead our country. But there wasn’t such a candidate. So are we to bury our heads in the sand and help the greater evil (HIllary) win instead and judge those who don’t vote for her, or don’t help her win by voting for a 3rd party that is clear will not be voted for by hardly anyone?

          Thanks for showing that you believe God’s Word is a joke. At least we can all see where you come from. Given your handle, it’s understandable, but perhaps a little meditation on Prov. 3:5-7 and Prov. 14:12 would be helpful.

          So how is it you judge me as not trusting in His ways?
          Would me voting for Hillary show I’m trusting in Him?
          Would me voting for 3rd party that can’t win to help make sure Hillary who hates God wins show I’m trusting in Him?
          Would hatefully attacking other believers in God as being “unfaithful, disobedient, and rebellious men” just because they didn’t vote how I thought they should show I’m trusting in Him?

          How nice it must be to have God confiding in you in such a way. Do tell us PLEASE when the time comes that He’s done judging us.

          You do realize we did NOT get a godly man elected? So is that God’s blessings?

          And the next time you decide to quote 2nd Chron. 7:14, you might wanna do a little study first on what it means to humble yourself, seek His face, and turn from your wicked ways.

          You mean I should judge other believers as “unfaithful, disobedient, and rebellious men” because they didn’t vote for Hillary or didn’t vote for a 3rd candidate that has no chance of winning this time around? Is that the humility you speak of? Is that turning from our wicked ways?

          Here’s a little clue: That and Matt. 6:33 don’t include pragmatism and doing what you think is best by choosing the lesser of two evils.

          Never said that’s what it meant – but I made it clear why I cited that: I quoted that right after saying

          “God knows our hearts that we want a born again believer in God leading our country”

          Why be dishonest and pretend I cited it as some sort of proof we should vote for Trump?

          You claim to be a believer, but your haughty, deceptive attack on another professing believer in God / Christ over an election no less does not bode well.

          A Christian voting for Trump outta self-preservation and national security was just the opposite.

          I took the less severe option God allowed. And I continue to seek a born again believer in God to rise up and become President.

          I’m not thrilled with Trump, but it appears something has you behaving unseemly given your professed calling.

          Take care.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Twist Scripture lest you be like Satan. Which is what you just did.

            Here are 5 verses that says it is NOT the Lord who put ungodly “kings” in place:
            1) Psalms 94:20-23
            2) Jeremiah 22:2-9
            3) Hosea 8:4 (it doesn’t get much plainer than this)
            4) 1st Samuel 8:18-21
            5) Proverbs 29:2

            All of them show that the “kings” come of the people’s own choice. I think Hosea 8:4 is the strongest because it’s the clearest but 1st Samuel 8:18 is pretty clear too and I would add Romans 13 as I take Verse 1 in relationship to Verse 4 and the “governing authorities” of Verse 1 being directly related to “it” in Verse 4. In other words, I see Romans 13 saying “it” is “Government” that God has established “for good” and not necessarily the individuals rulers that may inhabit that institution.

            Also, 3x in Jeremiah God is seen as having said, “nor did it come into my mind”. (Jer. 7:31, 19:5, and 32:35). In all 3 of these verses God is referring to the people who built the high places of Topheth and Baal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters in the fire to Molech and Baal.

            “Matthew 7:1-2 “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”

            Again you do just as Satan did when he quoted Scripture to Jesus. Read on down to Verse 5! Which is ALL of the passage and STOP telling half truths like Satan by only quoting the first two verses. DON’T miss the “AND THEN” in Verse 5!!! Then just read Verse 6 and ask yourself how one obeys that instruction without judging. In fact, I’d suggest you keep reading the rest of the chapter. Starting in Verse 15 you’ll see more instructions on judging.

            Matt. 7:15 is the instruction on HOW to obey the COMMAND that Jesus gives TO his followers in John 7:24

            “So are we to bury our heads in the sand and help the greater evil (HIllary) win instead and judge those who don’t vote for her, or don’t help her win by voting for a 3rd party that is clear will not be voted for by hardly anyone?”

            Your challenge is quite simple. Show me ONE verse in the Bible where God tells His children to choose ANY evil and to rely on their own wisdom rather than simply obeying Him!!! Go head. I’ll wait.

            By your wisdom and logic and reason you would have Believers voting for the Anti-Christ instead of Satan if both were the only two choices. Or the False Prophet over the Anti-Christ.

            “So how is it you judge me as not trusting in His ways?”

            By your own words.

            “Would me voting for Hillary show I’m trusting in Him?”

            Nope

            “Would me voting for 3rd party that can’t win to help make sure Hillary who hates God wins show I’m trusting in Him?”

            You do NOT have the Omniscience to be able to say what will happen in the future. So that’s a sin by even claiming you do. Better to just trust and obey God than worry about the outcome. Trust and obey God and leave ALL the consequences up to Him. That very statement shows you’re more concerned with yourself, your ways, and your wisdom than the Kingdom of God. What did Jesus say to Peter when he did that?????????????

            “Would hatefully attacking other believers in God as being “unfaithful, disobedient, and rebellious men” just because they didn’t vote how I thought they should show I’m trusting in Him?”

            Oh just STOP with your Liberal namby-pamby pablum of “hatefully attacking” ridiculous rhetoric. There was nothing hateful in that and the fact you even say that is evidence you don’t have a clue what true Love is.

            “A rebuke goes deeper into one who has understanding
            Than a hundred blows into a fool.” (Prov. 17:10)

            “Better is open rebuke
            Than love that is concealed.” (Prov. 27:5)

            “It is better to listen to the rebuke of a wise man
            Than for one to listen to the song of fools.” (Ecc. 7:5)

            “You claim to be a believer, but your haughty, deceptive attack on another professing believer in God / Christ over an election no less does not bode well.”

            Again, more typical Liberal pablum. Can’t address the facts of Scripture and confess your own sinful disobedience and unfaithfulness so you resort to further sin by bearing false witness against another and ad hominem.

            Now, c’mon back and preach some more to me about what a Believer should be like.

            “I took the less severe option God allowed.”

            Yes, God allows His Creation to have the free-will to sin. Congratulations. Just don’t try to justify it by saying it was God’s will.

            “I’m not thrilled with Trump, but a professing believer hating him so much that it has said believer behaving unseemly towards other believers given their professed calling is a bit incongruent. Please think again.”

            Again, more sin from you! More bearing false witness! For the record, I do NOT hate Trump. In fact I pray for him. I pray for his success in many areas and most of all I pray that the duties and responsibilities of his office drive him to his knees where he will cry out to the Lord and beg Jesus to save Him.

            Now, if you don’t have anything Scriptural to actually say to be, I’d just advise you to do what I said before. Get into a Bible-believing church, submit to godly men as you are COMMANDED to do, and be properly discipled.

            In the meantime, best to keep your mouth shut than continue to open it, speak for Satan, and publicly sin without any contrition.

          • Reason2012

            Here are 5 verses that says it is NOT the Lord who put ungodly “kings” in place:1) Psalms 94:20-23

            Let’s check your claim:

            Psalms 94:20-23 “Shall the throne of iniquity have fellowship with thee, which frameth mischief by a law? They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood. But the LORD is my defence; and my God is the rock of my refuge. And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the LORD our God shall cut them off.”

            Nowhere in there does it even talk about an ungodly leader being put into power, let alone NOT by God.

            Jeremiah 22:2-9 “And say, Hear the word of the LORD, O king of Judah, that sittest upon the throne of David, thou, and thy servants, and thy people that enter in by these gates: Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place. For if ye do this thing indeed, then shall there enter in by the gates of this house kings sitting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, he, and his servants, and his people. But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation. For thus saith the LORD unto the king’s house of Judah; Thou art Gilead unto me, and the head of Lebanon: yet surely I will make thee a wilderness, and cities which are not inhabited. And I will prepare destroyers against thee, every one with his weapons: and they shall cut down thy choice cedars, and cast them into the fire. And many nations shall pass by this city, and they shall say every man to his neighbour, Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this great city? Then they shall answer, Because they have forsaken the covenant of the LORD their God, and worshipped other gods, and served them.”

            Nowhere in there does it even talk about an ungodly leader being put into power NOT by God, but instead backs up what I said where God warns them He will raise up other countries (which includes leaders to lead them) to judge Judah.

            And you’re citing verses about Israel, His chosen people (no other country is His chosen people) where God wanted to lead them personally through prophets that He directly interacted through, not instead rebel from Him and set some man to rule over them, which is not what they’re supposed to do, as a King instead, which He then allowed to JUDGE them through just like Hosea 8:4 points out.

            Here in America from day one we vote in a President. We’re SUPPOSED to vote for a man to lead us. So we’re not rebelling against God by voting in a President. But WHO we are given as options, be it for blessing or judgment, is trivially controlled by God. And it looks like we have a possible born again believer as vice-president.

            The entire Bible shows how God left and right raises up leaders to help Israel, raises up people to JUDGE Israel. No leader comes into power without God’s permission. God makes it clear throughout the Bible and makes it clear when He literally says it.

            Daniel 2:20-21 “Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:”

            best to keep your mouth shut than continue to open it, speak for Satan,

            The acidic hate that comes out of your mouth exposes you

            1 John 4:20-21 “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.”

            Please think again.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You’re Denial doesn’t change the Truth of what’s said. Try again.

            Thanks for your admission to Hosea 8:4 though. Even though you try to twist it to fit your own position instead of simply taking it for what God says. The fact it ALL those verses and the ones in Jeremiah that you didn’t even address PROVE you wrong.

            Moreover, by your own admission you say, “We’re SUPPOSED to vote for a man to lead us.” First off, you won’t find a command in Scripture that says that and secondly, more importantly, that is an ADMISSION to exactly what I said. It’s the will of the People and NOT God as you claim that gave us Trump.

            You still have NOT provided ONE verse where God says His People should endorse or support an evil man. NOT ONE!

            And your squirreling little attempt to weasel outta what you said with “No leader comes into power without God’s permission” didn’t work either. You never initially said anything at all about “permission”. So THAT deception exposes you.

            “The acidic hate that comes out of your mouth exposes you”

            Oh? Exposes me how? Please do tell. From the verses you just cited you seem to be saying I’m not a Christian. And you tell me to think again? LOL

            All you did was bear false witness against a child of God. I don’t hate my Brother. And I didn’t lie in anything I said. You are the one who has lied by making the claim before and again here with your citing Daniel 2:20-21 and then trying to weasel around it with “permission”. That passage in Daniel is NOT talking about “permission”. It is talking about God actively and sovereignly doing so.

            And since you wanna call me an Unbeliever because of my “acidic hatred”, let’s see…hmmm, how does that compare with Jesus?

            Was Jesus showing “acidic hatred” when He asked the paraplegic at the pool of Bethesda if he wanted to be healed? Was Jesus showing acidic hatred when He told the Adulteress “go and sin no more”? Was Jesus being compassionate when He told the woman at the well that she was living in an adulterous relationship?

            I don’t think He was.

            As for reference to “Love”. You seem to connect that to some feeling which turns “Love” into a feeling and it is NOT!!!

            God is Love
            Jesus is God
            Jesus lived out and showed God’s Love perfectly ALWAYS.

            So, was Jesus being loving or unloving when He said, “You wicked generation of vipers”?

            Was Jesus being loving or unloving when He said, “You’re like white-washed sepulchers full of dead men’s bones”?

            Was Jesus being loving or unloving when He turned over the tables and took a whip to the Moneychangers?

            Was Jesus being loving or unloving when He said to Peter, “Get behind me Satan!”?

            I submit Jesus was being loving in all those instances and more. I also submit that your misplaced “acid hatred” characterization for a guy who brought you the Truth along with the false witness is most unloving.

      • Shane Egan

        Is the same Bible that says Jesus said that his followers could swallow any poison and survive? Do you really believe that? Or can you raise the dead as Jesus commanded you to do? Surely you can or did he lie or are you not a true Christian – one or the other must be true?

        Put up or shut up with your silly mythology which is no more ‘real’ than belief in Thor or Vishnu.

        • Reason2012

          Hello. Jesus was addressing His Apostles. Just like He gave His Apostles the ability to heal others and raise from the dead. Doesn’t mean He gave that to all believers either.

          Although it will not make anyone believe, these are things that prove God is real, that the Bible is divinely inspired, and that we will be without excuse when we face Him to give account for our lifetime of breaking His laws and refusing to be forgiven for it:

          The Bible is the only ‘religious’ book that dares to make prophecies, several hundred that have come true after the fact of them being written down, even up to thousands of years later, proving it’s divine origin. Easily searchable.

          Although it is not a science textbook, there are dozens of scientific facts in the Bible that scientists didn’t and couldn’t figure out until hundreds and thousands of years later, also proving its divine origin. Easily searchable.

          All religious texts were written in one lifetime by one person – the Bible was written over 1,500 years through 40 people and reads as one mind.

          The grave of all false religions’ prophets has their bones – the grave of Christ is empty – although they’re desperately trying to find it to try discrediting Christianity.

          You can_kill thousands in the name of a false religion like islam, and people of that country will bend over backwards to help you build a church where you did it. You dare mention Christ, hand out a tract, and you’re met with the utmost hatred. As Jesus said:

          John 15.18-19 *”[Jesus said]If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”*

          Please think again.

  • Deborah

    His statement makes me angry, and suspicious of what kind of judge he will be on the Supreme Court.

  • Darlene

    Just like the SCOTUS at one decreed that slaves were property and not persons.

    This idea that Roe v Wade is “settled law” needs to be eliminated. It was “settled law” that slaves were property. Thankfully, that settled law was changed.

    • RWH

      In 1986, the Supreme Court declared that gays didn’t have a right to privacy. Then, in 2003, they reversed this decision in Lawrence v. Texas. The Supreme Court has always worked for the expansion of rights, not the further deprivation of rights. Don’t expect the Supreme Court to take rights away from a targeted group anytime soon. Like it or not, the fetus has no rights. It is the property of the pregnant woman.

      • brisonc3

        “The Supreme Court has always worked for the expansion of rights, not the further deprivation of rights” which is why Roe will eventually be overturned for Roe as written by Harry Blackmun sought to strip an entire segment of the human species of a right of recognition under the Constitution(which many states held) and declare one segment of the human population not worthy of the legal status of “person”. This in itself is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment and the equal recognition and protection afforded by the Constitution by every human being(person) now matter how young or how old or where that human happens to live or what that human being looks like or what that human beings abilities are.
        Blackmun simply decided as a decision of raw power and authority to deny personhood and all it’s recognitions and protections to those humans in the womb because he personally saw the humanity of women as superior which is an affront to the Constitution and it’s mandate of equality for all human beings, not just ones found worthy enough by those in power to have recognition as a human being.

        The entire trimester system invented as well as the doctrine of “must be able to live outside the womb” was a hurdle created by Blackmun for no other reason than to allow discrimination against those in the womb for the benefit of women, in his view. Yet rulings from the Supreme court after Roe have made it clear that one segment of humanity can’t diminish the humanity of another segment of humanity for it’s own betterment. The Constitution mandates equal recognition of humanity for all human beings, not just those found worthy enough by those in power who choose to recognize the humanity of others or not.

        This is the problem with Roe and all decisions that came after it(Casey, Webster). It didn’t consider the very basic principals of the Constitution and of human equality and that with new knowledge of human beings, human anatomy, human biology, fetalogy) comes the mandate to use that knowledge to update the assumptions of the past(like slaves were property, but later were persons) and thus Roe. should be rethought under these principals. Scalia, Rendquist, Alito, Byron White, Thomas seem to understand this yet the liberals on the court seem to merely be stubborn and say “we have ruled this way for this long in the past, New knowledge and revelation from the sciences and medicine is irrelevant. It would require women to change how they live there lives.”

        But that is how all rulings of the Court that overruled precedent have been, requiring parts of the US population to change how they live there lives, like the ending of racial segregation in the south. Why should women be exempt from having to change how they lives their lives, so a segment of humanity that has been denied equal recognition and protection of the law, can now have it?

        It isn’t enough to say, “Roe has been considered and re-affirmed 44 times” when such re-affirmation fails to address the most basic principals of human rights and human equality that the Constitution is supposed to recognize, affirm and protect?

        • 1luisa

          I think the real issue is sex without children. People want sex without children and believe they have a right to gratify themselves sexually without children though sex is the vehicle for children. Now some argumentive person will start the nonsense argument that “not everyone can have children”‘ or w’hat about people beyond child bearing age”. Sigh! When you live in a permiscuous society like ancient Rome people’s biggest concern is self gratification especially in the arena of sex. Sodomy was rampant (especially pedophila sodomy) and their popoular version of abortion of leaving a baby to the elements to die. Promiscuity leads to disease and death. In our society sex is everywhere. On the radio, on tv, in the malls, in the way most women dress. It’s like everyone is obsessed with it. A beautiful gift for a man and a woman in marriage is now crass and like crack cocaine.

          • Chris

            You don’t need to have sex to be obsessed with self gratification. What about fundies and their ego worship? That is pure self gratification yet most would deny it to their dying day.

            Perhaps your attention and condemnations are misdirected.

          • 1luisa

            Chris,
            Hope you had a good weekend and feel refreshed to start out a new week. Hope you were blessed with a good sermon today where Christ was preached and sinners called to repentance. May you be found in Him on the last day.

          • Chris

            Alas I’ve been shut up in my house for several weeks due to an injured knee.

          • 1luisa

            You are most welcome! Sorry to hear about the knee. May The Ancient of Days grant you a speedy and complete healing. He cares not only for our never dying souls, but our bodies to. May His lavish mercies be upon you now and throughout eternity. Have a great week and take care.

    • antifasciste

      It took the 13th Amendment to settle the law RE: slavery, are you working toward a similar Amendment to settle the law regarding fetuses? Much easier to moan and wring your hands on an obscure website than to actually do something?

  • Christian Granado

    A fetus isn’t alive by human standards of life, not during the first trimester at least.

    • Reason2012

      Yes, just pretend he or she is not alive by some standard in order to keep the genocide going.

      Funny how the same people claim the first life form was merely a single cell, then after that a single-celled organism. They redefine words when it’s convenient.

      • Christian Granado

        It’s a human and thus has certain requirements for life which a first trimester fetus does not meet. Don’t blame me for stating biological facts.

      • Christian Granado

        You clearly don’t understand how life is defined, nor do you understand the development process of a human.

      • Christian Granado

        Lol

      • Christian Granado

        I think I replied to you, not sure if it posted though.

  • Robert

    This judge is a member of a big liberal denomination.that denomination supports and defends abortion . Why people think he
    Would not is beyond me.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    SCOTUS is hopeless without the Judeo-Christian conscience. Even AI would conclude that human life starts at conception and that fetus is fully human.

  • brisonc3

    “The Supreme Court has always worked for the expansion of rights, not the further deprivation of rights” which is why Roe will eventually be overturned for Roe as written by Harry Blackmun sought to strip an entire segment of the human species of a right of recognition under the Constitution(which many states held) and declare one segment of the human population not worthy of the legal status of “person”. This in itself is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment and the equal recognition and protection afforded by the Constitution by every human being(person) now matter how young or how old or where that human happens to live or what that human being looks like or what that human beings abilities are.
    Blackmun simply decided as a decision of raw power and authority to deny personhood and all it’s recognitions and protections to those humans in the womb because he personally saw the humanity of women as superior which is an affront to the Constitution and it’s mandate of equality for all human beings, not just ones found worthy enough by those in power to have recognition as a human being.

    The entire trimester system invented as well as the doctrine of “must be able to live outside the womb” was a hurdle created by Blackmun for no other reason than to allow discrimination against those in the womb for the benefit of women, in his view. Yet rulings from the Supreme court after Roe have made it clear that one segment of humanity can’t diminish the humanity of another segment of humanity for it’s own betterment. The Constitution mandates equal recognition of humanity for all human beings, not just those found worthy enough by those in power who choose to recognize the humanity of others or not.

    This is the problem with Roe and all decisions that came after it(Casey, Webster). It didn’t consider the very basic principals of the Constitution and of human equality and that with new knowledge of human beings, human anatomy, human biology, fetalogy) comes the mandate to use that knowledge to update the assumptions of the past(like slaves were property, but later were persons) and thus Roe. should be rethought under these principals. Scalia, Rendquist, Alito, Byron White, Thomas seem to understand this yet the liberals on the court seem to merely be stubborn and say “we have ruled this way for this long in the past, New knowledge and revelation from the sciences and medicine is irrelevant. It would require women to change how they live there lives.”

    But that is how all rulings of the Court that overruled precedent have been, requiring parts of the US population to change how they live there lives, like the ending of racial segregation in the south. Why should women be exempt from having to change how they lives their lives, so a segment of humanity that has been denied equal recognition and protection of the law, can now have it?

    It isn’t enough to say, “Roe has been considered and re-affirmed 44 times” when such re-affirmation fails to address the most basic principals of human rights and human equality that the Constitution is supposed to recognize, affirm and pro

  • Robert

    And especially the negro variety according to one supreme court Justice still on the bench

  • Robert

    Unjust laws are no laws at all said Martin Luther and Rosa park proved it when she kept her seat on a bus clearly breaking a unjust law.

  • Robert

    Scalia is not only wrong about allowing his murdering friend Ginsberg to continue it on ,he is dead wrong now.

  • I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve read that Judge Gorsuch would make Justice Scalia proud.

    God forbid that Scalia’s the standard!

    Most people considered Justice Scalia a conservative.

    QUESTION: What’s the true conservative position regarding in utero infanticide (wrongly termed “abortion”)?
    ANSWER: The conservative position is that it’s murder as determined by Yahweh God of the Bible, the ONLY One with the authority to determine whether it’s criminal and deserving of capital punishment.

    Turning the decision over to the States to decide (which was Scalia’s position and which would still result in millions of infants slaughtered in their mother’s wombs) is NOT the conservative position.

    QUESTION: Why was this Scalia’s position (and certainly Gorshuch’s as well)?
    ANSWER: Because to Scalia the Constitution was the Supreme Law of the land, not Yahweh’s law.

    For more, see online Chapter
    9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of “Bible Law
    vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 9.

    Then find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

    • Omnicopy

      Scalia was a Catholic and for all we know he molested little boys

      • Be careful that in insinuating something we have no evidence for that you’re not be found guilty of violating the Ninth Commandment.

        • Omnicopy

          A conservative constitutionist catholic is very capable of being a false christian

          • True. But that in itself doesn’t make him a pedophile.

          • Omnicopy

            They say he was being blackmailed for it. It fits, he’s Catholic! We will never know. Did they kill him? We won’t know that either. Washington DC is evil!

          • Chris

            If you don’t know these things then you are spreading gossip. Please stop.

          • Omnicopy

            I know he was Catholic. I know Catholics are fake Christians. I know they are demon possesed. I know Catholic priests molest children. So he was demon possessed, I know that.

          • Chris

            “I know he was Catholic.”

            This is from a speech Scalia gave at the Villanova Law School. ” “There is no such thing as a ‘Catholic judge,’ he declared. “The bottom line is that the Catholic faith seems to me to have little effect on my work as a judge . . . . Just as there is no ‘Catholic’ way to cook a
            hamburger, I am hard pressed to tell you of a single opinion of mine that would have come out differently if I were not Catholic.”

            “I know Catholics are fake Christians.”

            Correction. You believe that. You KNOW no such thing.

            “I know they are demon possessed.”

            Once again. You believe that but you do not KNOW it. If you KNOW something then you can prove it. You cannot prove this so you don’t KNOW it.

            “I know Catholic priests molest children.”

            Correction. SOME Catholic priests molest children. Every member of a group shouldn’t be blamed for the activities of SOME. For example SOME fundy pastors rape women. Does that mean ALL fundy pastors are to blame?

            “So he was demon possessed, I know that.”

            Once again you BELIEVE this but you do not KNOW this.

          • Omnicopy

            I know all fundy pasters are demon possessed. Are you Catholic?

          • Chris

            No. I’m from the same religion as Cyrus.

          • Omnicopy

            To imply a true servant of the Lord is mentally ill is very seriously! You can tell that by a few posts? You a mental health doctor? What an idiot!

          • Chris

            “To imply a true servant of the Lord is mentally ill is very serious!”

            I don’t believe I have done that. If I’ve given that impression then I apologize.

            “You can tell that by a few posts?”

            No. Nor would I presume to do so. I’m not a doctor so anything I would say in this are would be mere quackery.

            “What an idiot!”

            Obviously I have offended you. Apologies.

    • Chris

      “QUESTION: What’s the true conservative position regarding in utero infanticide (wrongly termed “abortion”)?
      ANSWER:
      The conservative position is that it’s murder as determined by Yahweh
      God of the Bible, the ONLY One with the authority to determine whether
      it’s criminal and deserving of capital punishment.”

      So you’ve just abandoned the establishment clause. And what about the people who do not share such a belief? Why should they adhere to it, especially if it violates their religious convictions?

      If you’re going to bring religious belief into your reason for making a law then everyone’s religious belief should be considered. Or you could just adopt a secular view of the law.

      • So, Chris, just to make sure I’m understanding you: you reject that all moral determinations are the exclusive authority of our God and Creator. In other words, that you have just as much authority as God to determine what is righteous and what is wicked. Is this correct?

        • Chris

          Your question are somewhat loaded. For one I do not accept that the bible is God’s word. That being the case I am NOT usurping God’s authority in this area. Secondly it is reason to determine the best ethical system and that ethical system has the authority.

          Now may I expect an answer to my questions?

  • Omnicopy

    The man is copping out

  • John

    If a fetus is not a person under American law, then how can someone who
    murders a pregnant mother then be charged with “Double Homicide” –
    further more, how does Neil Gorsuch interperate this definition of an
    unborn child by American Law – The
    Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United
    States law which recognizes a fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they
    are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed
    federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a
    member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is
    carried in the womb”.[1]

  • Ruth

    Through his POV he has proven that he has a liberal mindset, he is not pro-life as what the Conservative and Christians are expecting from him.
    This is a true statement” We live what we believe, we think what we believe, we say what we believe or else we will be living in hypocrisy, all our life. Hypocrisy is another term for living in lies. He believes that Fetus is not human so that’s what he stands for. He is not hypocrite, isn’t he? I’m not an American but I’m so disappointed in behalf of many Americans. President Trump got a big mistake in appointing him.

  • Conservative54

    “Neil Gorsuch: ‘A Fetus Is Not a Person’ Under the Law.” I would like to know what “law” he is talking about! SCOTUS does not write law. What written law states that a fetus is not a person?

  • KIT

    You folks are lost in semantic weeds per plan of BAR lawyers going back to the Civil War and FDR’s later court packing.

    A legal ‘person’ is a corporation just the ‘United States’ with its business charter (aka ‘constitution’) for all employees/officers/persons/individuals (aka ‘US citizens’) like you. It was crafted to resemble the organic original, minus the titles of nobility prohibition. Your “State of” franchises belong to the ‘United States’ which in turn has foreign bankruptcy receivers. There hasn’t been a de jure Congress sitting since antebellum days. The corporation conveniently disguised itself to fool you into contract and took its place.

    Your ‘person’ was pledged to banks at birth when your dumb momma (‘informant’) certified you as a ‘US citizen’ instead of an American State National (man/woman, not ‘person’). Birth certs are banking instruments and these lawyers merely debate how to buy and sell the souls of men, per Revelations in your Bible.

    Get educated.

    USAvUS[d|o|t]info
    annavonreitz[d|o|t]com
    sedm[d|o|t]org
    Roger Sayles Serfs Up

  • Lumen

    I thought Trump promised that he was gonna appoint a pro-life judge … ?