Today, the High Priests of the Supreme Court waved their royal scepters and summarily abolished a reasonable and necessary law passed by the elected representatives of the people of Texas.
After conducting a seance to discuss the matter with the writers of the Fourteenth Amendment, it confirmed that those men meant to protect the God-given, inalienable right of women to procure abortions at unregulated clinics. They just forgot to put that part in there.
Pro-life activist, Ryan Orr, 17, of Manassas, Va, waits holds a silent vigil as he waits for rulings in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. (Pete Marovich/Getty Images)
Not only do women have a right to execute their children, it turns out, but the right is so sacrosanct that they must not be forced to drive for 45 minutes to obtain one. In other words, women have a right to kill their kids conveniently. I assume it will only be a matter of time before you can order an abortion with a side of fries while you're in the drive-thru line at Wendy's. And that, too, will be a "right" embedded in the Constitution, according to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and friends.
Predictably, the overturning of the Texas abortion regulations sent leftists across the country into fits of demonic jubilation. Watching the sickening celebration unfold, I half expected to see them erect a temple to Moloch and start sacrificing children right there on the steps of the Supreme Court. But that was a silly thought. It was only the ancient pagans who sought divine favor by throwing their babies into the fire and watching them burn to death. Our modern pagans are more capitalistic. They know the child's organs are far too valuable to be tossed in the flames. Why incinerate a perfectly good liver if it can fetch 100 dollars on the black market?
Anyway, I certainly can't say I'm shocked by the Court's decision. With Justice Antonin Scalia gone, it would have required the Court's "moderate," Justice Kennedy, to keep the Texas law in place. But as we've seen, there is no distinction between a leftist and a moderate anymore. When it comes to the pivotal cultural issues, the mainstream position and the radical left-wing position are identical. You might say there is no radical left-wing at this point. Or maybe it's more accurate to say there is no middle. Either way, in the end there's only the culture and the counter-culture. Anyone who affirms the humanity of the unborn is a member of the counter-culture. Anyone who refuses to affirm it is a member of the collective, passively floating further and further into the moral abyss.
Now, a few other points about today's ruling:
1. Texas should ignore the Supreme Court.
The time for civil disobedience is now. On Tenth Amendment grounds, on the grounds of justice, on the grounds of human decency, on the grounds of saving lives, on the grounds of truth, of morality, of righteousness, Texas should tell the Court to go to Hell. In those words, preferably. The governor should come out tonight and declare his intention to enforce the state's law regardless.
There isn't even a pretense of constitutional interpretation anymore. Justices Thomas and Alito said themselves that the Court is operating by fiat, conjuring decisions out of thin air based entirely on the political preferences of the majority. But we are not actually living in a judicial dictatorship, despite how it seems. The Supreme Court is empowered to read the Constitution, not to unilaterally rewrite it. Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor don't have the authority to tell Texas, "Get rid of that law because we five liberals find it personally objectionable."
When will someone stand up to them, for God's sake? Conservatives all agree that they're acting outside the law and have been for some time. We agree that they're rogue tyrants imposing their perverse will on the country. We agree they have no actual legal authority to pass down royal decrees. What, then, are we going to do about it?
Tyrants only have power if you submit to them. Why, then, do we keep submitting? It's about time that someone calls their bluff. We knew it would come to this, didn't we? We knew that eventually some state would have to stand up and say, "Oh yeah? Make me." If now is not that time, with lives very much at stake, then the time will never come.
The federal government has put abortion clinics above the law. Not only above the law of Texas, but above the law of God. Nobody is entitled to that position. But they will continue to claim it until someone knocks them down and restores legal and moral order to this godless nation.
And if worse comes to worse, Texas should take a look across the pond and perhaps take a cue from recent events. If protecting an abortionist's right to kill children is a non-negotiable condition of membership in our Union, then maybe Texas should cancel its membership. The Old America was built upon liberty and Natural Law. The New America is built upon the dead bodies of our murdered children. To secede from such a country could be a heroic and virtuous act.
And if things do go that way, my only request of Texas is that it let a friendly blogger from the north immigrate there, along with his growing family. But if they turn me away, I promise I won't hop the fence.
2. Media outlets will say that the Supreme Court struck down an "anti-abortion law" in Texas, but that makes as much sense as saying its regulations on dentists are "anti-dental" or that its laws governing podiatrists are "anti-podiatry."
It might be true that many of the lawmakers in Texas would prefer to shut down every abortion clinic, but nevertheless that's not what the law said. The law simply required that abortion clinics meet many of the same regulatory standards other medical facilities are forced to meet. If that would have the effect of closing half the clinics in the state, that says more about the clinics than it does about the law.
Besides, if leftists believe abortion mills are medical clinics, why don't they want them to be treated that way?
And if regulations on an industry infringe on the rights of those who wish to access whatever good or service that industry provides, why don't they attach that principle to anything else?
Why do leftists magically become anti-regulation libertarian extremists only when it comes to abortion?
If the Texas law persecutes the customers of abortion clinics, do regulations on orthodontists create an undue burden on people who need braces?
And what about guns? Leftists breathlessly insist that regulations on the gun industry will save lives. They scoff at the notion that gun laws infringe on gun rights - rights which, by the way, are explicitly outlined in the Second Amendment. But why doesn't that same logic apply to abortion?
To make matters even more confusing, the majority opinion actually says that "an extra layer of regulation" would not prevent bad behavior, and that "determined wrongdoers" will do wrong regardless of the law. Since when do leftists use that rationale for anything? How can they suddenly adopt an argument they were scornfully mocking yesterday, and will continue to mock tomorrow when the conversation turns back to guns?
Pro-choice activists hold placards and chant outside of the US Supreme Court ahead of a ruling on abortion clinic restrictions on June 27, 2016 in Washington, DC. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
I could go on. The contradictions are endless. Leftists demand that abortion clinics be allowed to operate entirely outside of the regulatory laws that govern everything else, and they argue the point using logic that falls entirely outside of the logic they use when discussing everything else. To call this mere hypocrisy would not even begin to describe it.
3. Of course, they just as quickly accuse us of the hypocrisy. Conservatives are the ones being inconsistent, they say. We usually oppose regulation yet insist on it in this case. Why is that, they ask?
Well, I don't mind answering the charge: First of all, we don't oppose regulation in principle. I'm not sure I've ever met a conservative who thinks the gun industry or any other industry should be entirely free of regulation and completely immune from all laws and all oversight. We may argue that many regulations are unnecessary and counterproductive, but lawlessness is not a conservative position.
Leftists accuse us of harboring such anarchist views, but ironically, they are the ones who harbor them. When it comes to the abortion industry, they will not accept any law, any regulation, or any amount of oversight at all. They really do want the abortion industry to be above the law. And now, if the states all cooperate with the Supreme Court, it will be.
Second, we've seen what happens when abortion clinics are unregulated. We don't have to come up with hypotheticals. Kermit Gosnell killed born-alive infants and grown women in a dingy butcher shop with blood stains on the walls and dead bodies piled up in the refrigerator and the corpses of infants clogging up the toilets. He hired unlicensed kids to assist in dangerous operations and distribute medicine to desperate, poor women. He didn't even bother to sanitize his equipment before he sliced open his patients, sometimes giving them infections and venereal diseases in the process. He did all of this for 30 years in a facility situated right in the middle of a major American city. And he wasn't alone. There are other Gosnells, and they all clearly demonstrate what happens when the abortion industry is allowed free rein to govern itself.
Third, I fully admit that pro-lifers want to regulate abortion clinics primarily as a means to close them down and save human lives. I am more "pro-regulation" with abortion clinics than I am with anything else. And that's because abortion clinics exist solely to kill people. No other industry in America exists purely for that purpose, therefore no other industry deserves the same level of scrutiny.
Yes, we pro-lifers are guilty as charged. We're nefariously using regulation as a cover to stop babies from being slaughtered. Our ideal country, we must confess, is not a country where abortion clinics are safe and clean, but a country where there is no such thing as abortion clinics. After all, even the safest clinic is only safe for half of the people concerned. The other half - the babies - end up just as dead anyway.
It's true, as liberals have theorized, that most of the people who support abortion regulations also happen to hate abortion. But it's not true that our anti-abortion views render all abortion regulations unconstitutional or unreasonable. And the reverse is just as true, although leftists will not be as honest about it: They oppose regulations on clinics not because they really think the regulations are unconstitutional, but because they want more abortions.
There is, we discover, an underlying bias on both sides. Nobody is arguing about this objectively. This is really an argument about abortion itself. That's where all of our motivations are rooted. Leftists are motivated by a desire to live in a country where parents are allowed to kill their children with impunity, and pro-lifers are motivated by a desire to live in a country where babies are allowed to live and grow. We are biased by our love of children, they are biased by their worship of self.
I guess that's why I'm willing to admit to my bias. And it's probably why they aren't willing to admit to theirs.
To request Matt for speaking engagement, contact Clint or Matt at Outreach Speakers. Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: 866-400-2036. For all other comments and hate mail, email Contact@TheMattWalshBlog.com.
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.