Quote of the Day: DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz Defends Constitutionally Protected Rights

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (courtesy breitbart.com)

“We don’t know all of the details about this particular incident, but we do know that our national epidemic of gun violence must be addressed. Women shouldn’t have to fear for their lives to access basic health services or exercise their constitutionally-protected right to choose.” Wasserman-Schultz: Women at Planned Parenthood ‘Shouldn’t Have to Fear for Their Lives [via mediaite.com] [h/t AM]

comments

  1. avatar Mr. AR-10 says:

    “exercise their constitutionally-protected right to choose”

    I believe their logic goes something like this; the right should be there (all reasonable people agree), so it can be agreed upon that it *is* there. Just like the 2a applies to state militia only, as this is what all reasonable people agree on, and thus, we can agree that this *is* what it says.

    Very much like the ‘deemed passed’ nonsense.

    Very, very Orwellian I have to think to myself, assuming I am still allowed to do that.

    We have truly turned the corner here from the world of reason to a modern dark age.

    Very troubling.

    1. avatar Omer Baker says:

      As I’ve heard it put, “respectable” ideas can fit on a 3×5 index card and span the spectrum from Hilary Clinton to Mitt Romney (an equivalent of a 2″ section across a mile long span). If your ideas aren’t on that index card then you will be harassed until you sit down and shut up, but your ideas will not be refuted.

    2. avatar PavePusher says:

      The Constitution and Amendments are not a comprehensive list of the Rights of the people (although it specifically mentions a few); it is a list of the responsibilities and limits of government. Anything not specifically delegated to the government belongs is “Reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” i.e. the People get to make their own decisions, free from government interference. SCOTUS has ruled that this issue is up to each individual, and neither state nor federal government is allowed to interfere.

      If you don’t like that, Article 5 awaits your action. As I say to the Anti’s, “Please post regular progress reports.”

  2. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Which amendment was that? Was it written in disappearing, reappearing ink?

    1. avatar Art out West says:

      The “right to kill your own unborn child” must supercede all else. It is a critical part of the “right to do whatever you want sexually while having no consequences”. The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 10th ammendments etc. can all be cast aside. Nothing else matters but these two “rights”.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Not disappearing ink, but special ink, written between the lines of the 14th amendment, but you do have to be wearing rose-colored glasses in order to see it.

  3. avatar Mk10108 says:

    The right to abort life, sanction by the state, funded by taxpayers, then sold as body parts for “research”, then Democratic Party gets financial contributions from Plan Murder to keep them on business.

    Where is the above accurate discription written into the Constitution?

  4. avatar Canuck says:

    I’m not an American, but I don’t think the word “abortion” appears in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

    Pretty sure that “arms” does, though.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The right to an abortion was inserted after the fact by activist judges in the SCOTUS. Like that or not, they had the authority and used it. What is queer, here, is that no “interpretation” is required to understand the RKBA, yet morons like Schultz can’t see that it’s there, pretend it means something else, etc. If you don’t like 2A, move toward a constitutional amendment, if you wish abortion to be outlawed, do the same. Why not combine the two, in fact? That would pretty much assure that neither would pass in a single state.

    2. avatar PavePusher says:

      I said it above, but it bears repeating:

      The Constitution and Amendments are not a comprehensive list of the Rights of the people (although it specifically mentions a few); it is a list of the responsibilities and limits of government. Anything not specifically delegated to the government belongs is “Reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” i.e. the People get to make their own decisions, free from government interference. SCOTUS has ruled that this issue is up to each individual, and neither state nor federal government is allowed to interfere.

      If you don’t like that, Article 5 awaits your action. As I say to the Anti’s, “Please post regular progress reports.”

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        And when, exactly, does the unborn human being, endowed by its creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, get to exercise the right to choose to be murdered?

        SCOTUS has no authority to deny the right of life to the most innocent among us. The SCOTUS derives its authority from the people, and the people have no such authority.

  5. avatar Smith says:

    Well, the right to privacy has been established. It could be argued that that protects a woman’s right to choose. Regardless, that in no way affects my right to own guns. It was probably not the best move to phrase it that way.

    1. avatar PewPewPew says:

      So i could privately murder my neighbor? No one could ask questions as long as i did it in private?

      1. avatar Jay G says:

        It’s difficult for anyone besides the person who is actually pregnant to tell if they are pregnant in the first trimester. It’s also very common for pregnancies to self-terminate in that time period. If abortion was illegal to investigate it would require the state search and seize the papers of doctors and women, and probably search and examine the bodies of the women themselves when they were suspected of aborting a child. This would constitute an unreasonable search and seizure because it’s speculation to think that a women was even pregnant in that time period and that if she was that the pregnancy ended from a medical intervention as opposed to natural causes. To produce such papers or testimony from the doctors or patients that an abortion occurred would also violate that 5th amendment as it would require self-incrimination as a reasonable discrete person would only invoke those that participated in the act itself.

        All that being said, it definitely shouldn’t be tax-payer funded.

        The state which has the search and seizure violations , the self-incrimination powers that can ban abortion would be capable of banning your guns, just fyi.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          “All that being said, it definitely shouldn’t be tax-payer funded.”

          No medical procedure should ever be taxpayer funded, including Osamacare. None, zero, goose-egg, let them die in the street NONE. After one exception, soon you have taxpayer-funded breast implants, fertility services for single women with 6 children already, and abortion. Right along with enormous and still skyrocketing costs.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I have to expand a bit. Octomom utilized taxpayer funded (Medicaid) services for her fertility adventures in search of a reality TV show to the extent of hundreds of thousands of dollars, without ever holding a job in her life, and leaving her children alone or with nannies paid for by taxpayers. That amount of money equated to the birth of more than a dozen unwanted children, could instead have paid for thousands of abortions, of children who will be burdens to the taxpayers and the criminal justice system for the rest of their lives. Society would be far healthier if everyone were responsible for his/her own health care/insurance and personal defense, both.

        3. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          ‘That amount of money equated to the birth of more than a dozen unwanted children, could instead have paid for thousands of abortions, of children who will be burdens to the taxpayers and the criminal justice system for the rest of their lives. Society would be far healthier if everyone were responsible for his/her own health care/insurance and personal defense, both.’

          That’s some real Nazi eugenics shit your spewing out there. While I don’t agree with my taxpayer funds being handed out for nonessential services, including fertility services, who’s to say those children are unwanted or that they will continue to be a drain on the rest of society as adults? Who are you to declare them criminals before they’re even out of diapers? Is it really better to slaughter a million children every year than to give them the chance to be productive citizens? Should Ben Carson have been executed before his birthday as well? Every human has the right to prove his worth. There is no such thing as untermenschen. If you don’t like it there’s a country just north of the Republic of Korea where you’d fit right in.

    2. avatar Wiregrass says:

      Secure in their papers and effects. I suppose you could think of pregnancy as an effect.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        Pregnancy consists if two separate and distinct bodies of the same species. I don’t believe the older one gets to kill the younger for the sake of convenience just because the younger one can’t defend itself.

        1. avatar Charles Ray says:

          You think too rationally for this world.

        2. avatar Wiregrass says:

          No argument here. Just trying to see how a right to privacy, as I can only see as defined as a protection from illegal search and seizure under the 4th Amendment could be interpreted as a right to choose to kill an unborn life.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Define it however you like, just precisely as anti-gun people misrepresent the argument over firearms. That does not change the fact that abortion is legal at the request of the pregnant woman and no one else (you cannot make that decision, one way or the other, for your 25-year-old girlfriend, or for your 12-year-old daughter, or the woman on the other side of town who you don’t even know. It simply is not your business, show me one reference which says it is.

        4. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

          If it’s none of my business if my girlfriend chooses to murder my child, then it should be none of her business if I choose to not pay the child support if she chooses to let the child live.

          BTW there are lots of things that are legal that aren’t right and lots of laws banning things there’s nothing wrong with. I refuse to let the United States Congress or the Supreme Court be my moral compass. Remember when SCOTUS ruled that black people weren’t human? When they deemed separate but equal was A-Okay? When they said congress meant federal government when they said ‘states’?

      2. avatar Don says:

        The constitution and amendments only delineate federal government power and the limits on it, so even if a fetus were an “effect” this would only mean that the government could not deprive you of it, or interfere in it’s natural existence.

    3. avatar ThomasR says:

      It has already been decided that a human being can’t be owned as property or as a slave to be killed at will.

      That the human being in question happens to be held in a human womb for nine months before being born into the world to live for possibly another eighty to even a hundred years shouldn’t change that truth.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Says you. Except no one is paying attention, since it is not, and can not be, any of your business.

        1. avatar Don says:

          Murder is murder, and that’s everybody’s business, or we are no better than savages all.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Slavery exists all over the world, just BTW, both sexual and otherwise, including several places in the US, stating that it does not doesn’t make it so.

    4. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      Mostly correct with the privacy thing…. the Doctor-Patient privacy thing.

      What is important to remember is that the right to choose is not directly a Constitutional RIght, never was and never will be. There was a case heard by the Supreme Court, you might have heard about it…. Roe v Wade, that made it ‘the law of the land’ by virtue of going before the highest court. That case did not, however, somehow magically make the right to choose a Constitutionally Protected Right.

      And on behalf of the rest of Florida that did not vote for this harpy…. I am sorry.

  6. avatar Mk10108 says:

    True…though nothing about selling baby arms.

  7. avatar Bdk NH says:

    “A well regulated clinic being necessary to the security of a liberal state, the right of the people to abort innocent babies shall not be infringed.”

    Imagine the position of power this woman will be granted when Hillary is elected. Scary. Personally, I think we have an epidemic of violence being perpetrated on a million or more innocent babies every year. In a hundred years abortion will almost certainly be illegal and will be at looked with more disdain and shame than slavery. No doubt in my mind.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      Guaranteed! It’s called survival of the fittest. A species won’t survive if that species sees thier offspring as a inconvenient parasite to be killed at will and a union between a man and woman as husband and wife to raise those children as a horrible burden and something to be avoided at all costs.

    2. avatar Arthur says:

      Actually, I would predict that in less than 100 years we will have over-the-counter abortion pills, gov’t funded abortions on demand, and hate crime laws prohibiting anti-abortion speech or activities.

      Oh, and posts like this one will be automatically blocked by the anti-hate internet filters.

  8. avatar DerryM says:

    This guy in Colorado did exactly one of the worse things anyone could have done to give the Left fuel for a new anti-gun rights push. Whatever Wasserman-Schultz has to say about it, I could care less.
    The so-called “right to choose” was conferred on American Women by Roe vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton, 1973 as an extension of privacy granted in the 14th Amendment. It is not a Constitutionally protected right, as is RKBA, but it is a legally protected option by virtue of SCOTUS’ making “Law” by fiat.
    America has broken its moral compass and no one exemplifies that better than Wasserman-Schultz. The Colorado Planned Infanticide shooter was/is as wrong in his actions as Wasserman-Schultz is in her remarks quoted above.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      ” …give the Left fuel for a new anti-gun rights push.”

      A wet fart would give them fuel for gun control, that is why we cannot stop pushing back. Statist gotta state.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Wasserman-Schultz is expressly saying the so-called “right to choose” to kill your unborn infant is “constitutionally-protected”, which it expressly is not. In the absence of any event or happenstance the “Statists” will gladly fabricate a reason to push for more gun control, they don’t need to wait for “wet farts”. THAT is why we must push back with factual clarification of the lies they invent and put into the Public Record.

    2. avatar ButtMunch says:

      How is defending the life of an unborn baby ever bad?

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Go shoot-up YOUR local Planned Infanticide facility and be sure to kill a few people. See how that works for you.

      2. avatar JSJ says:

        None of the shooting victims worked at Planned Parenthood. One was an Iraq vet, another the mother of two and the third a police officer. That’s who was killed “defending the life of an unborn baby”.
        otherwise known as: committing a triple murder.

        1. avatar Mister Fleas says:

          Then how do we even know this was about abortion? The media lies on a regular basis.

  9. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Gotta love that constitutional buffet.

    I’ll take some abortion. Nope, don’t want any iky guns, but, how about some insurance, and I’ll take heaping helping of that safety you got there.

  10. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I have yet to read anything that Mr. Dear said or did anything to target the abortion clinic. PP is saying that he targeted the clinic, but his neighbors stated he never talked about abortion or religion much.
    The right to abortion is not really stated in the Constitution and I think the basis for the SCOTUS decision had something to do with privacy issues and penumbra maneuvering. Sort of like the gay rights decision.
    Amazing how penumbra has priority over explicitly enumerated rights.

  11. avatar Calvin says:

    How no one in that clinic was armed boggles the mind.

    1. avatar Benzo says:

      ^^THIS^^

    2. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

      Unless you count forceps.

    3. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

      The arms had been sold for research.

      1. avatar dh34 says:

        Ba-dum-bah…golf clap sir.

    4. avatar LarryinTX says:

      You must be forgetting that abortion clinics would be overwhelmingly staffed by liberals, who think the police can magically protect them. Common sense would dictate private security, given the foaming at the mouth by fundamentalist extremists (even here!), and in fact I am still expecting to hear that the first to die was a security guard.

  12. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    It’s already thought of that way bdk. By most folks not going to hell anyway. And I’m not sanctioning murdering baby murders. The republigoofs need to man up stand against this evil. POTG should be a given…”cold dead hands”…

  13. avatar WillieLee says:

    No staff, employees, patients or clients were killed or injured. That’s a terrible attack. Almost like it wasn’t an attack at all.

    1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

      Bingo. But actual facts take away from the narrative.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Really? I hadn’t heard that. Maybe they saw the fruitcake coming and locked the doors!

  14. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    There is no constitutionally protected right to an abortion. In the majority decision Chief Justice Blackmun stated that ‘if the humanity of the fetus could be established’ it would nullify their decision. 42 years and 4 billion successful human childbirths later and we’re still waiting for one of those fetuses to come out as anything but human. Roe v Wade has been thoroughly nullified by science but DWS wants to drag us back to the dark ages.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      That interpretation is even more ridiculous than Blackmun’s, and that’s saying something!

      1. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

        If it’s not a human fetus then what is it? Does it magically change from a possum to a human at 24 weeks or something? Maybe it’s a duck billed platypus? Too bad children are never born prematurely so we could find out. Or maybe they could invent an ultrasonic device to peer inside the womb and make sure that’s not a koala bear in there.

  15. avatar Mk10108 says:

    No, she and half the population is wired to say, think, and do as they please. Democrats will lie, cheat, steal and womb murder while wrapping themselves in their interpretation of the Constitution, then deny law abiders their rights to lawful self protection.

    Only thing I fear is the demise of the Republic.

  16. avatar Sammy^ says:

    Debbie and I have different definitions for “basic health services”.

    1. avatar dsreno says:

      It doesn’t fit the narrative here, but Planned Parenthood does offer many non-abortion services. Everybody wants to fixate on abortion, though.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Well for some people with a working conscience, a million dead babies every year does kind of “fixate” them on the scale of the carnage.

      2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        It’s a percentage thing. Check out the numbers sometimes.

        Oh, and while you are at it…check out the stats regarding the “who” is the recipient of their special brand of pre-birth ‘counseling.’ Sanger was a charter member of the US Eugenics Club, and she was a bona fide racist.

        Statistically, it ain’t white, middle and upper class families her legacy organization has gutted.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          She was never, and would be never allowed to make such a decision for another woman, nor is anyone else inside or out of PP, that has to be made by the woman involved, only. Which pitches your “eugenics” and “racist” ploys right out the window, Which I am sure makes no difference to you, since they were not the real reason you are objecting anyway.

  17. avatar Paul53 says:

    “National EPIDEMIC of gun violence.” Maybe you can get a shot for that?

  18. avatar gsnyder says:

    A dangerous person, attempting to use fear to shock emotionally driven progressive base. She is a liar.

    There is no gun violence problem, she is another in the continuing broken record of spin doctors who take advantage to hate on guns. There’s most certainly no danger to women in general.

    To be completely accurate their isn’t even a violence problem. We don’t truly know why some behaviors act out as they do. The anti-gun logic is flawed to such extent it becomes exceedingly difficult to believe those who make such assertions can honestly believe their own statements.

  19. avatar Carsickplatypus says:

    It must be pretty awkward to constantly post content about anti-gun politicians when 90% of them are Jewish…

  20. avatar IL-annoyed says:

    If unborn babies had concealed carry, abortion clinics would be safer.

  21. avatar Lurker_of_lurkiness says:

    Was the dude actually attacking pp, or did he just take refuge there after shooting?

  22. avatar PavePusher says:

    The Constitution and Amendments are not a comprehensive list of the Rights of the people (although it specifically mentions a few); it is a list of the responsibilities and limits of government. Anything not specifically delegated to the government belongs is “Reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” i.e. the People get to make their own decisions, free from government interference. SCOTUS has ruled that this issue is up to each individual, and neither state nor federal government is allowed to interfere.

    If you don’t like that, Article 5 awaits your action. As I say to the Anti’s, “Please post regular progress reports.”

  23. avatar Roger Cain says:

    Corrected:

    “A woman shouldn’t have to live in fear as she heads to the clinic to exercise a constitutionally-protected right to terminate an infants life “.

    Um, okay…. left-wing retards.

    1. avatar JSJ says:

      If you don’t like the law, work to change it. (and I support that change entirely).
      Until then It is not acceptable to shoot people who are not breaking the law, but merely offending your personal conscience.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Until then It is not acceptable to shoot people who are not breaking the law, but merely offending your personal conscience.

        Wow. Straw man, much?

        Has anyone here defended the actions of a murderer?

        1. avatar JSJ says:

          This statement:
          A woman shouldn’t have to live in fear as she heads to the clinic to exercise a constitutionally-protected right to terminate an infants life “.
          Like it or not, is a correct statement of the law as currently written.
          By calling the statement that of a “left wing retard” one might assume the poster disagrees.
          Either with abortion being legal (then work to change it), or with women not having to live in fear (not acceptable).
          No straw man involved.

  24. avatar Anonymous says:

    A constitutionally protected right to kill babies and sell their body parts? Sure. Please read the constitution.

  25. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    What “national epidemic of gun violence”? I don’t think those words mean what Debbie thinks they mean.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email