An "Interview" with Margaret Sanger on Dobbs v Jackson (Abortion) ... - Granite Grok

An “Interview” with Margaret Sanger on Dobbs v Jackson (Abortion) …

Werner Chicken Coop Raucous Roosters Happy Hens David Werner

GREETINGS….CITIZENS OF THE FALLEN REPUBLIC OF SUNUNU.

This is BUZZ BUZBY of radio station WTF interviewing renowned author and eugenics philosopher, and hopefully-and let’s keep our fingers crossed on this one-future president of the “I hate every kid I ever met” society…MARGARET SANGER.

BUZZ: “Greetings Margaret! Thank you for this interview. As one of the leading advocates for PLANNED PARENTHOOD- or are you the founder? – you must be horribly upset over the recent Supreme court decision of Dobbs v Jackson, where the Court overturned Roe v Wade. I mean, how could they do that to you – outlaw abortion? I know you must be in mourning and that I should probably let you alone to grieve, but I need the story, and I really don’t care about anyone’s feelings so tell me -What are your thoughts now that you took it in the gut?”

SANGER:” Well, my first thought is that you are a complete, illiterate moron. My name is Margaret Singer- like I told you at least five times. I am an avid supporter of Margaret Sanger, but she is dead, and I am not her. My second thought is that you are a complete, illiterate moron because you never read the decision, and you obviously don’t know what it says.”

BUZZ: “UH? Read the decision? The actual decision? Why would I do that? It’s all a bunch of mumbo-jumbo lawyer talk. Naw, I just watched the pro-lifers celebrate, and the pro-abortion folks cry and gnash their teeth. I just figured that from the way they were acting, it was good for the pro-lifers and really bad for you folks. Am I wrong?”

SANGER:” Wrong? Yea, dead wrong! If I had written the opinion myself, I could not have done a better job. The Supreme Court gave me and all my abortion buddies a Christmas gift, a birthday gift, and the winning lottery ticket all in one decision. They not only upheld abortion laws. They extended authorized them to the extremes of any true abortionists’ dreams of- NO LIMITS ABORTION. Abortion right up until the moment of birth. Maybe even beyond. And if the little guy survives the abortion, they gave us the go-ahead to finish the abortion. I am not crying. It’s me that is celebrating.”

BUZZ: “Are you sure about this? I mean, I saw all those pro-lifers smiling and dancing. They were even taunting the abortion workers. They think they won. Shouldn’t we tell them they lost??”

SANGER: “Why? Let them keep their delusions. As long as they don’t read the decision, they will just go about their business and leave us alone while we spring into action. We can blindside them with their own fantasy. And when they finally do wake up–oh my goodness-the laugh I am going to get from the look on their faces…priceless. “

BUZZ: Ok, but I am here to get the full story. I don’t want to wait or to read the decision. Can you at least tell me why you feel you won? What’s in that opinion that makes you feel so good?”

SANGER: “Well…I don’t know…can you keep it to yourself…no, i bet you can’t. No, never mind. None of those pro-lifers will read your column because no one does. …So here goes…May I have a drum roll….please?!?! DRED SCOTT.”

BUZZ: “Huh? What? Who the hell is Dred Scott? Should I interview him? Will he know what is in the Dobbs case?”

SANGER:” No. You fool. In 1857, some three years before the start of the American civil war, the big fight was on slavery. There was a big problem brewing because the south wanted slavery, and the north – not so much. The south claimed that slaves were not human, but some kind of subhuman. More like a horse, a piece of property. The north – at least some of them – claimed that the slaves were, in fact human beings and therefore entitled to constitutional- rights, including freedom.

That was the issue in the case of Dred Scott v Sanford, which was decided by the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Tanney-who many felt was against slavery…boy did he fool them -wrote the opinion. In his words, Dred Scott was a “NEGRO SLAVE OF AFRICAN DESCENT’. Scott claimed that his owner had taken him from a slave state to a free state to live. Since the free state did not allow slavery, he argued that he should be set free, and his owner should not be allowed to practice slavery in a free state. The Supreme court rejected his argument and stated that the basis for their ruling was simple: they read the constitution from stem to stern, and nowhere did it say that “NEGRO SLAVES OF AFRICAN DESCENT” were “persons” under the constitution. Justice Tanney ruled that Mr. Scott was simply not a” person”. He was not even a human being. He was more like a piece of property, and his owner could do with him as he pleased-even take him to live in a free state since he could easily take a horse to live in a free state and not lose ownership.

Fast forward to the 1970s and the ROE V WADE DECISION. The Supreme Court ruled that an unborn child is really the same as DRED SCOTT. Justice Blackmun wrote the opinion. He said that he read the Constitution from stem to stern and no place did it say that a fetus was a person. And since the unborn child was not a person, it had no rights under the constitution. Instead, it was a DRED SCOTT- more like a horse, a piece of property that the owner could treat in whatever way a slave owner wanted to treat it. Here is what this church-going Catholic man said:

“Several of the litigants argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and the meaning of the 14th amendment…If this suggestion of personhood is established (ROE’S) case of course, collapses, for the fetus’s right to life would be guaranteed…The Constitution does not define “person”…(However, we decide that) the use of the word…applies only postnatally.”

Fast forward to Dobbs-2022. Justice Alito, speaking for the majority of the court, could easily have said that the unborn child-fetus was a “person,” and then we would have lost. He did not do that. He skirted the issue and said it’s up to the states to make that decision. In avoiding the issue, he gave us all that we wanted. More. The right to abortion goes forward. AND JUST SO YOU WILL KNOW–THE RIGHT TO ABORTION DOES NOT EXIST IF THE UNBORN CHILD IS A “PERSON”. We have always known abortion requires the child to be DRED SCOTT. The fetus is DRED SCOTT- A HORSE, NOT A HUMAN. AND LIKE THE SOUTH COULD DO WHATEVER IT WANTED WITH ITS SLAVES, SO TO WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT WITH OUR DRED SCOTTS.”

BUZZ: “WOW! WHAT A GREAT VICTORY FOR YOU. You must be really proud. You will go down in history for taking the lives of millions of those unborn kids just by resurrecting the pivotal case that led to the civil war.”

SANGER:” Proud? You betcha. But not just because of the DRED SCOTT stuff. There is something that is really remarkable that I have not even mentioned yet. It may be more important than even the “YOUR NOT HUMAN” RULING.”

BUZZ: “Really? Well, ok. But we are running out of time, and I really need to get over and tell the pro-lifers what you are saying and get their reaction. Briefly, what is more, remarkable than saying a kid is subhuman?”

SANGER: “Wait until you hear this. You won’t believe it. I know I had a hard time with it: The Supreme Court did what it never does-ever. It told my people how to go about creating and enforcing the most far-reaching abortion laws we could ever dream of.”

BUZZ:” You mean they gave you a road map to your very own “promised land.”

SANGER:” THEY SURE AS HECK DID. Let me enlighten you: Every first-year law student who has completed the basic course in Constitutional law can tell you the various rules that the Supreme Court lives by. One of the most basic rules is the legal standard to apply when considering whether a law impinges on a Constitutional right. If the law in question is seeking to impinge on a “fundamental right” like one of the bills of rights (freedom of religion or speech, etc.), then the government has a very high burden to justify the law. The Court says it will subject the law in question to very “Strict Scrutiny ” and will hold it to be unconstitutional unless the state has a “Compelling state interest” in enforcing the law.

If, however, the right in question is not a “fundamental” right, the court applies a very different and much more lax standard: the Court will uphold the law so long as the state has “any rational basis.” The Supreme Court held that a state may pass any law it wants allowing abortion -even without limits, even up to the moment of birth or perhaps beyond–and the Supreme Court will review the law under the more lax standard. So long as there is any rational state basis for the abortion law, it will be upheld. They even told us then what would be a rational state interest. The Court said:

“A law regulating abortion …is entitled to a strong presumption of validity. It must be sustained if there is any rational basis on which the legislature could have thought it would serve legitimate state interests…these legitimate state interests include…protection of the maternal health and safety.”

BUZZ: Wow. Let me get this straight now: All the abortion folks need to do is go to one of the states they control-like, New York or Vermont and pass any abortion law they want–no matter how extensive or vile–and the Supreme Court has already told them exactly what to say to win out. Why the hell would the pro-lifers think they won? My god, Margaret, you can truly treat the little boogers like a horse, and get away with it. Maybe even get a medal and a big contract for all those baby body parts you can harvest.

SANGER: MORE LIKE THE DRED SCOTT HORSE. I got to go now. Hope I helped you understand what happened and why we won. Wait-I forgot. I guess I could stay a little longer if you want me to sing a song I wrote to celebrate our win: I call it “EUGENICS FOREVER,” and it goes to the beat of JINGLE BELLS. Or if that is not to your liking, I got another one. It’s called “MY NAME IS DRED; I CAN’T DIE CAUSE I AM ALREADY DEAD.”

BUZZ: NAW. PASS ON THOSE. But… how about YOU ARE MY SUNSHINE”

NEWS FLASH-UPDATE: VERMONT IMPOSES NO LIMIT ABORTION ON DEMAND. TELLS TWITTER TO SUPPRESS ANY BABIES BORN ALIVE AFTER BOTCHED ABORTIONS.

>