Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gab TV, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
One of the many problems with neo-progressives – most especially in Connecticut – is that they never seem to know when they have won a battle.
The abortion battle in Connecticut was won in 1990 when the state incorporated into state statutes the dubious provisions of Roe v. Wade. The high court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson did not make abortion illegal, nor did it threaten abortion in the states when affirmed by legislative statutes.
The opposite is true. The court struck down a badly reasoned prior judgment and ruled that “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg agreed that Roe v. Wade had been poorly decided long before the court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson.
The high court’s decision reversing Roe v. Wade leaves in place the Connecticut statute affirming the provisions of Roe v. Wade. That would not be the case had the high court decided that abortion was illegal.
According to Connecticut’s Office of Legislative Research (OLR), state law “1. provides that the decision to terminate a pregnancy before the fetus is viable (i.e., can live outside the mother’s womb) is solely that of the patient in consultation with the patient’s physician, advanced practice registered nurse (APRN), nurse-midwife, or physician assistant (PA); 2. prohibits abortion after viability except to preserve the pregnant patient’s life or health; and 3. establishes information and counseling requirements for minors under age 16 who seek abortions (see below) (CGS §§ 19a-601 and 19a-602 as amended by PA 22-19, § 7 and PA 22-118, § 489). The law allows physicians to perform any type of abortion. It allows APRNs, nurse-midwives, and PAs to perform medication or aspiration abortions, and specifies that these providers may perform either type of abortion in accordance with their respective licensing statutes (CGS § 19a-602 as amended by PA 22-19, § 7 and PA 22-118, § 489).”
In brief, the high court decided that state legislatures – not courts – should be able to shape laws governing abortion. The Dobbs v. Jackson decision affirms Connecticut’s 1990 statute and, importantly, offers protection against future court reversal of the statute.
Governor Ned Lamont’s State Supreme Court choice to replace a departing Associate Justice, Sandra Slack Glover, is now in trouble. In a top of the fold Hartford Courant story, “Senate could block Glover,” reporter Chris Keating notes, “Traditionally a judicial nominee by a Democratic governor is virtually guaranteed confirmation when fellow Democrats control both chambers of the legislature.”
So, what’s the beef against Glover? State Supreme Court nominee Glover had signed her name in 2017 to a letter supporting Amy Coney Barrett to become a federal appeals court judge. Glover, we may assume, was not gifted with prevision and could not know at the time that Glover would years later join a Supreme Court that would reverse Roe v. Wade.
Glover testified before the state’s Judiciary Committee that she regretted having signed the letter, but neo-progressive legislators in the General Assembly are not interested in apologetics. They are chiefly interested in promoting issues that will add voters to the Democrat side of the political divide, and abortion rights are a hot button issue.
So then, Glover signed a letter that was partly responsible for Barrett’s elevation to a federal appeals court. Barrett later was elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court on the strength of her sterling record. The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled 1) that the prior position of the U.S. Supreme Court in their Roe v. Wade decision was irredeemably defective, and 2) that decisions regarding abortion should properly be made by state legislatures, not courts – in effect sanctioning the above Connecticut statutes supporting abortion and preventing lesser courts from overriding such decisions.
One can clearly imagine those opposing the Glover nomination as neo-McCarthyites waving their paper files and shouting in the face of a dispirited opposition, “How dare you oppose our demands!”
Connecticut has since added provisions to its neo-progressive abortion legislation. How progressive is Connecticut in the matter of abortion?
Journal Inquirer columnist Chris Powell tells us that Wesleyan University in Middletown, “a citadel of leftist groupthink,” bowing to pressure from the university’s “chapter of the Democratic Socialists … has agreed to pay for abortions for its students.” Powell concludes that “abortion fanaticism may be meant mainly as a distraction from the defects of both the national and state Democratic administrations. It presumes that clamor about abortion can induce most people to forget about inflation, forever wars, open borders, and the soaring national debt as long as there is a chance that the law somewhere might impede abortion of viable fetuses.”
Powell’s analysis is considerably sounder than America’s inflated currency.
