Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was accused by Georgia Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of being part of an “insurrection” at the Supreme Court simply because Ocasio-Cortez (who is also known as AOC) dared to show up for a peaceful protest outside the court after the six conservative justices overturned 50 years of precedent by striking down Roe v. Wade, which gave women the right to make their own reproductive choices.
Greene posted a video of AOC protesting, along with this asinine message:
“AOC just launched an insurrection. Any violence and rioting is a direct result of Democrat marching orders.”
— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) June 24, 2022
That was all Ocasio-Cortez needed to lay a brutal slap down on Greene by reminding her of what a real insurrection looks like and the fact that the Georgia Republican asked Donald Trump to pardon her for her role in the violence that took place on January 6, 2021 at the Capitol.
“I will explain this to you slowly: exercising our right to protest is not obstruction of Congress nor an attempt to overturn democracy. If one were a heinous enough person to do that, they’d likely seek a pardon for it too. But only one of us here has done that. And it ain’t me.”
I will explain this to you slowly: exercising our right to protest is not obstruction of Congress nor an attempt to overturn democracy.
If one were a heinous enough person to do that, they’d likely seek a pardon for it too.
Others also reminded Greene that she’s in no position to accuse anyone of insurrection.
You’re not very bright so let’s try and explain this to you, Three Toes… We have the right to protest PEACEFULLY in this country. We have the right to assemble PEACEFULLY. We do NOT have the right to brandish weapons, zip ties & bear spray while breaking IN to buildings. Moron.
Yo Marge, you know the internet is forever. Why is calling for a protest by AOC any different than your position here. Oh yeah why did you need a pardon? https://t.co/ivvZS3gTue
At a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee this week, an anti-abortion activist told members of the panel that electric power in Washington, D.C. is provided by burning aborted fetuses.
Catherine Glenn Foster, who is the president and CEO of Americans United for Life, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. She spoke out forcefully and at times graphically about abortion. At one point she claimed discarded fetuses help power Washington, D.C.:
“Abortion activism always requires euphemism and misdirection. Why? Because of the violent nature of abortion. Because it is, frankly, inconvenient. Human persons, from their earliest, days poisoned in the womb and dismembered, torn limb from limb, bodies thrown in medical waste bins and – in places like Washington, D.C. – burned to power the lights of the city’s homes and streets.
“Let that image sink in with you for a moment. The next time you turn on the light, think of the incinerators, think about what we’re doing to ourselves so callously and so numbly.”
Where did Foster get such an absurd conspiracy theory? HuffPost reports it likely came from rumors that medical waste is often incinerated:
While some states, like Indiana, require aborted fetuses to be buried or cremated in a funeral home, they’re disposed of as medical waste in the nation’s capital.
That has led anti-choice activists to accuse Curtis Bay Medical Waste Services, the largest medical waste incinerator in the country, of transporting and incinerating fetuses to generate energy. Recently, an anti-abortion activist found with the remains of five fetuses in her apartment claimed that she and a colleague had obtained them from a Curtis Bay worker. The company denied the claim, saying company policy prohibits it from transporting fetal remains.
If indeed the Supreme Court does overturn Roe v. Wade and criminalize the right of women to make their own reproductive choices, how many unwanted orphans will Catherine Glenn Foster be willing to adopt?
According to Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), the only reason some companies are saying they’ll pay for their employees to travel and receive abortions in states where it’s legal is because they don’t want to provide parental leave benefits.
HuffPost notes that Boebert shared her brainless conspiracy theory on Twitter:
“Anyone else consider that these companies suddenly offering to pay for employee abortions are doing so just to avoid paying for maternity leave?”
“Cheaper to kill the baby… true evil personified.”
Anyone else consider that these companies suddenly offering to pay for employee abortions are doing so just to avoid paying for maternity leave?
However, Boebert has also been a vocal critic of paid parental leave, such as what she said last November:
“I delivered one of my children in the front seat of my truck. Because, as a mom of four, we got things to do. Ain’t nobody got time for two and a half months of maternity leave. We have a world to save here.”
Saving the world? Sure thing, BoBo. You can’t even manage to keep your lies straight, yet alone “save” anyone.
Social media users blasted the Colorado Republican.
Friendly reminder that Lauren Boebert is against maternity leave. She actually said so… 🤷🏼♀️https://t.co/GOgHvsV47X
Wow…a new low. Basically accusing Starbucks of infanticide. Keep in mind Starbucks doesn't decide what the employee does. They are supporting the decision.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki spoke with eloquence and poignancy on Monday when asked about the possibility that Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that gave women in the United States the right to make their own reproductive choices without government interference, may soon be struck down by at least five right-wing, reactionary members of the current high court.
Asked by a reporter about Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) threat to enact a federal ban on abortion if Republicans retake control of Congress after the midterm elections, Psaki replied:
“I think we’re at serious risk. As you noted Mitch McConnell and other Republicans in Congress are talking about a national ban on a woman’s right to choose. Dozens and dozens of Republicans in Congress signed on to the Mississippi court case and are advocating for severe restrictions on a woman’s right to choose, and a woman’s right to make choices about her own body.”
Referencing that Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves (R) had indicated his state might also seek to enact legislation that would criminalize the use of contraception, Psaki added:
“So as the President has said, over the course of the last nearly week, his concern is about yes, a woman’s right to make choices about her own health care, about what this final [Supreme Court] opinion could be. It’s also about what choices could be made that go beyond that. I’d also note that Louisiana legislators advanced a bill to classify abortion as homicide which would allow women to terminate their pregnancies to be charged with murder and potentially criminalized in vitro fertilization and forms of birth control. So in some ways, yes, you’re seeing an outcry by the nearly two thirds of the public and many of them peacefully protesting, who are concerned about what this opinion will say, but you’re also seeing a number of Republicans in states and some in Congress double down on this potential to overturn a law that has been the law of the land for 50 years.”
A few minutes, in response to an other question about the possibility of Roe being overturned, Psaki noted:
“When we’re talking about Roe, Roe has been the precedent for a number of other laws passed by the Supreme Court that impacts people’s fundamental lives, their basic rights, their freedoms, their privacy and their protections, including if you look back Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstaedt v. Baird, which ensured the right to use contraception was protected. That is law now, but we are clear-eyed about this being a precedent for that and what could come next. Obergefell v. Hodges, which protects the right to marry. Lawrence v. Texas, which stops government from preventing sexual relationships between consenting adults. For 50 years Roe has been the basis for a number of these decisions that have have impacted and change people’s lives, in our view for the better.”
Q: "How at risk does the administration believe the U.S. is to completely outlawing abortion?"
This country is supposed to be about self-governance as much as possible, especially on matters that are as personal as whether or not to have a child. Granted, the Founding Fathers didn’t directly address the issue of abortion or contraception, but consider these words from Thomas Jefferson:
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Sunday that he’s shocked some of his colleagues in the Senate are upset Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh lied about overturning Roe v. Wade during his confirmation hearings in 2018.
Fox host Bret Baier noted that Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said this week she’s angry Kavanaugh told her he would likely not vote to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe ruling:
“Some senators are now openly questioning whether they were misled in the confirmation hearings.”
Graham replied:
“This has not been well-accepted by the public. The public has been divided since 1973. Ask your next guest, who is a good friend, does he want the court to reconsider [Citizens United] regarding campaign finance laws? Would he welcome a revisiting of the Heller decision where the court said the Second Amendment was a personal right?”
The public has been divided on the issue of a woman’s right to choose? Polls released just this week show otherwise, with a Washington Post-ABC News poll indicating that “54 percent of Americans think the 1973 Roe decision should be upheld while 28 percent believe it should be overturned — a roughly 2-to-1 margin.”
Graham continued:
“So my liberal friends don’t mind the court overturning decisions they don’t like. They very much are against overturning decisions that they agree with. So you can’t bargain your way into getting onto the court. So any senator who tries to bargain with a nominee — will you uphold the case I like or overturn the ones I don’t — is really doing a disservice to the court.”
Notice how Graham completely avoided saying if a justice should be punished for lying under oath during a confirmation hearing? Apparently the senator is fine with perjury as long as it’s done in the service of conservative ideals.
