“I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law….Roe v. Wade is a constitutional right that is well established.”

Thus spake Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), according to a CNN report.

But which Roe v. Wade decision does Sen. Collins stand by? There’s the imaginary Roe, which dictates that unregulated abortion be available throughout pregnancy. Then there’s the actual Roe, which permits states to leave abortion unregulated but also permits many laws protecting the lives and safety of mother and preborn child.

Where does Sen. Collins stand on First Amendment protections for peaceful pro-life witnesses outside abortion facilities? After all, McCullen v. Coakley is “established decision, established law.” Or does she consider peaceful pro-life witness to be an attack on abortion rights?

How about restrictions on public funding of abortion and abortion counseling? The Supreme Court OK’d such restrictions decades ago. Abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU Reproductive Rights Project use terms like “gag rule” to describe efforts to keep abortion providers out of taxpayers’ wallets. In the Senator’s view, do restrictions on public funding amount to “hostility” to Roe v. Wade?

Parental notification for minors’ abortions, reflection periods before abortion, informed consent laws, restrictions on mid- and late-term abortion, protections for children who survive attempted abortion: certain forms of these laws have been found consistent with Roe. Then again, PP and ACLU consider such measures attacks on abortion rights.

The pro-Roe Senator Collins could vote with a clear conscience for a jurist who supports the abortion regulations that have been approved by the Supreme Court since Roe. Such a nominee would not be hostile to the actual Roe decision, even if that nominee displeased PP and the ACLU.

Maybe one day there will be less deference to a precedent that’s inconsistent with human dignity. For now, though, we’re left with wondering what Senator Collins means by “hostility.”

Ellen writes about the life issues at Leaven for the Loaf. 

Now’s the time to celebrate the First Amendment and support independent journalism by hitting DaTipJar. Thank you!

Last Saturday night my son and I were having dinner at the Cracker Barrel in Sturbridge and had some time to kill before our order came up.  Rather than play one of the peg games they had for sale I came up with a new game, the “Cracker Barrel Trigger a Woke liberal College Student”

You see Cracker Barrel is a restaurant filled with Americana.  The decor has been unaffected by the current  explosion of being “wokeness” and every item on the wall was invented before the term “microagression” existed.

The game can be played with two but can be played with larger parties, the rules are very simple.

Starting with the first player you point out an item of decor that would trigger a liberal, a flag, a gun a photo, an old ad and play continues to the right until a person can not name one.  If a choice isn’t obvious then that person, in the voice of a triggered woke liberal, has to explain why they would be triggered.

In a game with more than two players, the player who can’t name the item is out and play continues until there is a single player left who share of the tip is covered by the rest.

If you’re going to have to deal with woke liberals why not have fun with it?