WOE IS WARREN: Senator Says Supreme Court Has Lost All “Legitimacy” After Overturning Roe [VIDEO]

12
(AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Massachusetts Senators Elizabeth Warren says that the U.S. Supreme Court has “burned whatever legitimacy they may still have had” with its ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark decision that said abortions are Constitutionally protected.

“They just took the last of it and set a torch to it,” Warren told ABC in a Sunday morning interview. “I believe we need to get some confidence back in our court and that means we need more justices on the United States Supreme Court. We’ve done it before, we need to do it again.”

ABC host Martha Raddatz pressed Warren why abortion rights shouldn’t be decided by individual states.

“‘Go to the polls,’ you say. President Biden says, ‘Go to the polls.’ But look at the states outlawing abortion. Those are largely conservative states, [South Dakota] Governor Noem had a point there – people go to the polls. They went to the polls just like your constituents in Massachusetts where abortion is legal, so why not leave it to the states?”

Warren responded: “We have never left individual rights to the states. The whole idea is that women are not second-class citizens and the government is not the one that will decide about the continuation of a pregnancy. Access to abortion, like other medical procedures, should be available across the board to all people in this country.”

The Supreme Court’s decision is currently the most contentious domestic policy issue confronting an already divided American people, with pro-lifers celebrating it and pro-abortion individuals decrying it.

Since Friday’s decision, eight states have outlawed abortion and a total of 26 states are expected to ban abortion in most cases within the next few weeks.

(YWN World Headquarters – NYC)


12 COMMENTS

  1. This “hot” issue will cool off in a short time for several reasons:

    1. Rather the uphold a right to life (protected by the 14th amendment), held that abortion was not covered by the 14th amendment, meaning the Federal government can not ban, or legalize, abortion. Since most people live in states which tend to be “blue” or “red” the controversy will be minimized since most people will be living in a place whose laws they find acceptable. It will be hard for someone in Texas to be going crazy over whether someone in New York is having an abortion (and vice versa), and almost all purple states are near “blue” states which minimizes the controversy (people can go next door if they object).

    2. Even if a state says it is banning “all” abortions, that would never include a situation where the mother’s life is in danger (which is only a small part of abortions) since under common law one can always act to preserve your own life (the technical term is the criminal defense of “necessity”), and that is protected by the 14th amendment (which in general included common law rights). In addition, it is unlikely a state legislature would approve a repeal of the criminal defense of “necessity”, which would have to be done by statute.

    3. In “blue” states with pre-Roe laws on the book, the local courts could still apply Roe based on their own state constitutions (it would be non-controlling authority, and would carry a notation that Roe was overturned on jurisdictional rather than substantive grounds).

    4. State can not enforce their own laws outside of state borders, so a woman wanting an abortion is free to travel to another state

    5. The 14th amendment was originally intended to protect African Americans, and worded to cover all ethnic minority groups (the debates including arguing whether it would also cover Irish and Chinese immigrants, who at the time were less popular in many regions than Blacks). It has been used to expand protections to corporations, religious minorities, and to cover many subject matter areas (particularly under the rights based on a “right to privacy”); while abortion (and male homosexuality) were clearly criminal in the mid-19th century meaning they weren’t “rights” it isn’t so clear how much “privacy” was protected at that time.

  2. This lady sounds like a raving lunatic. Her statements about the court are unpatriotic at best and seditious at worst. As a member of Congress she’s questioning an entire branch of the US government !!???…well guess what she only damages her own branch of government which she serves in. Instead of simply admiring the system which works out differences in peace she’s basically the system of government sucks because we didn’t get the result we like. Grow up! She sounds like a child who didnt get the cookie. Stop crying and take your losses like an adult.

  3. This illegitimate women claimed to have been of Native American/Indian lineage. She is useless. She contaminates the air we breathe. Hey Ms. Liz, help to keep the planet green by placing a call to Dr. Kavorkian.

  4. Millhouse said it best…..she should be the last person questioning legitamacy…..this is the best thing that could have been done…

  5. The Democrat response is unsurprising though still wicked cruel: everything must always keep going under their control and direction or they will destroy to its root every institution.
    Grant more and more dominance of the whole planet or we will burn all down

    The gist is how radical attitudes are allowed to change on a dime now that the Court has finally returned to a somewhat conservative bent after literally decades of wrecking havoc

    Why?

    Reverence for the Court was Nationwide accepted consensus and used to browbeat Conservatives into teeth grinding quietude during all those decades when there was a left domination. Imagine if the conservatives would have done this during all those decades! The country and the world would be a different place today!
    But they unhappily survived barely -grew old even while believing the court was wrecking the country for the sake of all.
    The travesty! Blatantly.

  6. On Dobbs – she ignores that true Democracy is managed best at the State level.

    On the EPA – Congress can establish their standards statutorily. This decision simply prevents UNELECTED bureaucrats from making sweeping decisions that is outside of the control of the People.

    She’s not a serious person, and should be put out to pasture.