WASHINGTON, DC, Sep 8 -- Texas did the right thing in at least creating a civil enforcement action against the physician violating the law. So did the U.S. Supreme Court. When you hear a heartbeat, the baby is alive; it's a human being.
That first heartbeat can be heard by an ultrasound scan as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, and abortion groups say that is just about the time in a pregnancy when 80 to 90 percent of women seek abortions. In other words, the Texas law in question, Senate Bill 8, and the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision upholding it might not overturn Roe vs. Wade, but it surely will further limit the availability of abortions in that state and, presumably, in any other state that might pass a similar law.
It should be noted, however, that the Supreme Court's decision does not deal with the merits of the Texas abortion law, according to Senator Bill Cassidy . He explained that those who presented the case against the abortion law did not have the standing to do so. Thus, the court left open the potential for a party or parties with "standing" to challenge the law on the basis of its merits.
In fact, Cassidy, who says he is personally opposed to indiscriminate abortions, told ABC News that he thinks the Supreme Court will ultimately "swat" away the Texas law when it is presented to the court in the proper fashion.
Meanwhile, a new Rasmussen survey shows that voters are divided as regards the Texas law, with 46% in favor of the law, 43% against it, and 11% undecided. The poll also reveals that "After the Supreme Court declined to grant an injunction to prevent the Texas law from going into effect, President Joe Biden responded by promising to 'launch a whole-of-government effort… to ensure that women in Texas have access to safe and legal abortions.' Forty-six percent of voters support Biden's effort to protect legal abortion, while 45% are opposed to Biden's effort."
Rasmussen also says that 46% of voters believe that abortion law is the purview of state governments, just 34% of them believe it is within the scope of the federal government, and 20% are uncertain.
Nonetheless, the court's decision triggered a frenzy among progressive politics. Why? Perhaps because they wanted to distract us from the Biden administration's "disastrous policies," including the shameful way the president conducted the Afghanistan withdrawal, Cassidy said. Whatever the reason, it wasn't about the Texas law's constitutionality; it was about how and by whom the Supreme case was presented.
Yet, Speaker Pelosi wasted no time in planning for legislation that might dismiss the "heartbeat exception" to legal abortions in Texas and other states that may pass similar heartbeat laws.
Better yet, it has resurrected the notion that in order for Democrats to assume complete and total control of America and its citizens, they need to add four more justices to the Supreme Court-- like-minded justices who they can count on to legitimize their whims and wishes.
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, , who seems to see herself as the darling of the socialist set, cut right to the chase. She used Twitter to send the message that "Republicans promised to overturn Roe v Wade, and they have. Democrats can either abolish the filibuster and expand the court, or do nothing as millions of peoples' bodies, rights, and lives are sacrificed for far-right minority rule."
Senator Ed Markey, also turned to social media to get support for his Judiciary Act, a bill that would up the number of Justices on the Supreme Court from nine to 13. As he put it: "This Supreme Court abortion ruling cannot be the last word. Senate Democrats have the power to fix this problem right now by abolishing the filibuster and passing my legislation to expand the Supreme Court."
The aim of his legislation is to allow the Senate to appoint Justices without the challenge of a filibuster.
35 Comments