As Democrats went into the streets immediately after Hillary Clinton lost 2016 presidential election with massive anarchism and vandalism, now they have returned to the streets with the call of burning and defying the Supreme Court.
An MSNBC host challenged a high-ranking California state official who make what many saw as inflammatory remarks following the US Supreme Court decision on Friday overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling legalizing abortion in 1973 throughout the country.
Anchor Katy Tur repeatedly asked Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, a Democrat, whether her comments encouraging Americans to “prepare to defy” the high court meant she was “calling on people to break the law.”
During an interview following the decision, Kounalakis said the court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization “decision is delegitimizing the Supreme Court.”
She went on to rail at Justice Clarence Thomas, who noted in a separate but concurring opinion that he believes it is time for the Supreme Court to reexamine previous rulings regarding gay marriage and contraception under the same premises that Dobbs was decided.
“Who is Clarence Thomas? Is he my Saudi Arabian father who’s going to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body, with my life? That’s what this is coming down to,” Kounalakis said.
“So these people have a misconception about who is going to listen to them. And so my message to the women and to anyone seeking their reproductive freedom across this country is, come to California,” she continued.
“You will have that freedom here. But, secondly, be prepared to live in defiance of these six people who think that they have the right to tell you what you can do with their bodies,” she added.
“Are you telling people to break the law?” Tur responded.
“No,” replied Kounalakis. “I am telling people that they can access under California law their rights that were protected by the Constitution. That is going to be held in defiance in some states. And I would say, yes, prepare to defy.”
Moments later, Tur asked the lieutenant governor to clarify her remarks as to whether she was asking Americans to defy the highest court in the country.
Kournalakis went on to suggest that the answer is yes.
“Katy, it’s not my words. Their own actions are undermining their legitimacy,” she claimed.
“This is a constitutional right that women have exercised for 50 years. I don’t believe that it is legitimate for them to take that right away from us,” the Democrat official continued.
“They cannot tell millions of American women what to do with their bodies. This is not going to stop abortion. It is only going to make it more dangerous and harder to access,” she added.
“But women know, they know they have a God-given right to autonomy over their body and they’re going to seek it out and Clarence Thomas is not going to tell them that they can’t,” Kournalakis added.
For the record, in overturning Roe, the high court did not ban or outlaw abortions but rather returned the issue back to states where it had existed for more than a century and a half.
“During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal,” notes a 1979 paper published by the National Library of Medicine.
“From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced,” the paper continued.
Thomas, in his concurring opinion, cited Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 case in which the use of contraception by two married individuals was deemed private and protected by the Constitution, as well as Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case dealing with homosexual sex between two consenting parties. He also cited Obergefell v. Hodges, a 2015 case that would make homosexual marriage constitutionally protected.
“After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated,” he wrote.
“To answer that question, we would need to decide important antecedent questions, including whether the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects any rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution and, if so, how to identify those rights.”
Please follow Blitz on Google News channel