Oral arguments were heard today at the Supreme Court on a landmark abortion case that may significantly impact the future of Roe v. Wade. I do not write today on the merits of the case, the arguments presented, or the morality of abortion. Those are thoughts that go far beyond the scope of a short-form blog. My thoughts today go to the reaction of the New Hampshire Congressional Delegation to the case.
Three of the members had comments reported by the news sites, and one got the attention and a rebuke from Chief Justice Roberts. In a statement out of character for Jeanne Shaheen, the senior Senator of the Granite State, the Senator proclaimed there would be a revolution if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The tone of her comment is one thing, but the implied threat to the Court raised the ire of Justice Roberts. I do not agree with most of the views of Senator Shaheen, but she is generally seen as a reasonable voice in the Senate. Her comments harkened memories of Schumer calling out Justices by name on the steps of the Court last year. His remarks also brought a warning from Roberts, and many Republicans are still calling for an investigation into Schumer’s actions. Shaheen may have added her name to that investigation.
It is appropriate for Congress or the President to discuss the pros and cons of a case before SCOTUS. But the line is crossed when you comment on how the Court should rule.
Senator Hassan also had comments on the case.
“The case ahead of the Supreme Court is a direct attack on decades of precedent set by Roe v. Wade. This is one of the most extreme abortion bans in the country and it would take us back to almost 50 years ago,” said Senator Hassan. “The result would be devastating for women and the Supreme Court should not put government in front of women’s most personal, difficult, and complicated health care decisions. I’ll continue working with my colleagues to protect the rights enshrined in Roe v. Wade and to help ensure that all women have the individual autonomy that is critical to their ability to thrive and critical to our democracy as a whole.”
I have an issue when anyone claims that abortion is about the woman’s health but never mentions the fetus’s health. They talk about the right of a woman to have legal access to abortion under the guise of reproductive rights. There is nothing reproductive about the termination of the life of a fetus.
Chris Pappas, the only male in the NH delegation, had these comments.
“We must do all we can to draw attention to and stand against legislation that places onerous burdens on women and health care providers because this is inconsistent with who we are as Granite Staters. The House has passed the Women’s Health Protection Act and I hope there’s a path forward to pass this legislation into law and codify Roe v. Wade, which has strong support in New Hampshire and across the country. We can no longer count on the Supreme Court to defend Roe and be the backstop as they have been – in this new era it’s up to us to fight back,”
Pappas also went on to call the Court majority “radical.” There are six justices that Republican Presidents appointed with the hope of a conservative view of the Constitution. This plan has not always played out with Chief Justice Roberts often siding with the Liberal three justices. I find it interesting that Pappas refers to thinking not aligned with him as radical. So much for bipartisan thinking. It does not exist in today’s government.
We have four Democrats representing New Hampshire in Washington. That is not an accurate representation of where the Granite State is today. We have total Republican control of our state government, and the way Maggie Hassan is spending money a year out from the election tells it all. We could very easily have three seats flip to Red in 2022, and that will be a better vision of New Hampshire. New Hampshire is returning to her Conservative roots of the past.