Armed Man Arrested Near Brett Kavanaugh’s Home Threatened to Kill Him.
Police detained an armed man from California early Wednesday morning near the suburban Maryland home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, saying he threatened to kill Kavanaugh and had a handgun, a knife, and burglary tools.
Kavanaugh is one of at least five Supreme Court justices believed to support a leaked draft of a majority opinion in a major abortion case that would overturn the court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion on demand.
The Kavanaugh residence and those of other conservative Supreme Court justices have been the targets of pro-abortion protesters in the weeks since the leak. Kavanaugh’s house has been the scene of at least two of those protests, on May 7 and May 11.
Citing an FBI affidavit, CBS reported:
Police found in his belongings a black tactical chest rig and tactical knife, a Glock 17 pistol with two magazines and ammunition, pepper spray, zip ties, a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crow bar, pistol light, duct tape, hiking boots with padding on the outside of the soles, and other items.
Roske did not make it onto Kavanaugh’s property, the Post and other outlets reported. It was not clear whether Kavanaugh and his family were home at the time.
Heritage Foundation scholar John Malcolm told The Daily Signal that the threat against Kavanaugh “is shocking and horrifying,” but “not surprising.” (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.) Malcolm, vice president of Heritage’s Institute for Constitutional Government and director of its Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, said:
When protesters are allowed to loudly protest outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices—a clear violation of federal law—and no action is taken; when the Senate Majority Leader [Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.] stands on the steps of the Supreme Court and, after calling out Justices [Neil] Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, irresponsibly says, ‘You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,’ we should not be surprised that a deranged individual exacerbates the situation by resorting to violence.
This individual should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and our public officials should not engage in inflammatory rhetoric that undermines respect for the rule of law.
Abortion is never medically necessary to save a woman’s life.
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill into law on Wednesday that will restrict abortion beginning at fertilization and, like the Texas Heartbeat Act, allow private citizens to sue abortionists who “knowingly” commit an abortion “on a pregnant woman.”
HB 4327 uses private enforcement through civil lawsuits rather than criminal enforcement. An abortionist or anyone who aids in the abortion could be sued for up to $10,000. There are two unnecessary exceptions with the bill allowing for abortion in cases of rape or incest and when the life of the mother is at risk.
“I promised Oklahomans that as governor I would sign every piece of pro-life legislation that came across my desk and I am proud to keep that promise today,” said Stitt in a statement. He continued, “From the moment life begins at conception is when we have a responsibility as human beings to do everything we can to protect that baby’s life and the life of the mother.”
He added that “if other states want to pass different laws, that is their right, but in Oklahoma we will always stand up for life.”
“@GovStitt just signed the strongest pro life bill in the country,” said Live Action founder and president Lila Rose on Twitter. “This law will protect all life from the moment of fertilization. As of tomorrow, every abortion facility in the great state of Oklahoma will be shut down. The pro life movement is just getting started!”
Abortion Activists Firebomb Pro-Life Pregnancy Center, Third Bombing in Weeks.
Radical abortion activists who firebombed the office of a pro -life groups in Wisconsin and Oregon and who have vandalized over a dozen churches and pregnancy centers have struck again.
Early this morning police and fire departments in Buffalo, New York responded to smoke and fire at CompassCare, a pro-life medical office and pregnancy center that helps women and children. The building was firebombed and the windows in the reception room and nurses’ office were broken and fires lit.
Graffiti on the building left by the arsonists refers to the abortion terrorist group Jane’s Revenge reading, “Jane Was Here.” The group took responsibility for a firebombing of a pro-life organization in Madison, Wisconsin in May, and it could have been responsible for bombing the offices of Oregon Right to Life during the same month. It has also vandalized and destroyed multiple churches and pregnancy centers.
CompassCare’s CEO, Jim Harden told LifeNews, “This is the pro-abortion ‘Kristallnacht.’ Because of this act of violence, the needs of women facing unplanned pregnancy will go unmet and babies will die.”
“Ironically, New York’s Governor not only ignored the violence but instead earmarked $35 million in taxpayer funds to increase security at abortion clinics. Adding insult to injury the New York legislature passed a bill investigating pro-life pregnancy centers precisely because they do not perform abortions,” he added.
“CompassCare will rebuild. Because women deserve better. CompassCare will not stop because pre-born boys and girls deserve protection,” he told LifeNews.
A radical pro-abortion group named Jane’s Revenge eventually said it was responsible and is threatening increasingly violent attacks that extend beyond Wisconsin if its demands are not met, writing, “Wisconsin is the first flashpoint, but we are all over the US, and we will issue no further warnings.”
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a report last week warning that radical abortion activists plan to burn down or storm the Supreme Court building and murder justices and their law clerks if the court overturns Roe v. Wade. The report indicates these pro-abortion extremists also plan to target churches and other places of worship with violence and vandalism.
Abortion opponents once agreed rape and incest were ‘exceptions.’ What changed?
When Alabama approved an abortion ban in 2019 without exceptions for victims of rape and incest, it wasn’t just some prominent Republicans who disagreed with those exclusions. Televangelist Pat Robertson called the law “too extreme.”
But since then, rape and incest exceptions – once an accepted part of proposed abortion restrictions and supported by a series of Republican presidents including Donald Trump – have been increasingly rejected by conservative state legislatures.
Among 92 proposals for abortion restrictions pending in states this year alone, only a handful contained those exceptions, said Elizabeth Nash, a state policy analyst for Guttmacher, which supports abortion rights.
“The shift has been quite dramatic. Even five years ago, we would not have seen anti-abortion legislation that would not have exceptions for rape and incest,” said Michele Bratcher Goodwin, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine who heads the Center for Biotechnology and Global Health Policy.
Students for Life of America is one of the groups that has worked to exclude exemptions by arguing that “every human being has is worthy of love and worthy of life, no matter the circumstances of their conception,” said Kristan Hawkins, the group’s president.
Some key Republican legislators still support such exceptions, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a spokesman said. Arkansas Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson last month said he thinks the state’s abortion law could be “revisited” to add rape and incest as exceptions if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
How exceptions might play out if the Supreme Court strikes down Roe is complicated in part because some states have passed several bans of different types, often blocked by courts, with varying exceptions.
Pennsylvania Senate Approves Amendment Declaring There is No Right to Kill Babies in Abortions.
Pennsylvania Senate lawmakers advanced a state constitutional amendment Monday that would prevent abortion activists from forcing the state to legalize abortions up to birth and taxpayers to pay for them.
“My constitutional amendment would make it so that the people’s elected representatives are the ones who set policy regarding abortions, not activist judges,” said state Sen. Judy Ward, R-Hollidaysburg, the lead sponsor. “When it comes to protecting the lives of the unborn and protecting women’s health, we must keep the power to legislate in the hands of the people’s representatives.”
Tom Shaheen, president for policy at the Pennsylvania Family Institute, said the state Supreme Court is considering the abortion lawsuit right now, and the ruling could be disastrous for the unborn and all Pennsylvanians.
“Today, Pennsylvania faces the greatest threat to unborn children and their mothers since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision,” Shaheen wrote in an email to supporters last week. “To put it bluntly, Pennsylvania is at risk of becoming a state like New York that allows abortions up until birth – and paid for by taxpayers.”
The Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, which also supports the amendment, said the court case could force state taxpayers to pay for the killing of unborn babies in elective abortions and strike down the state parental consent law, which requires underage girls to have a parent’s permission for an abortion.
It also could get rid of the state ban on late-term abortions and end informed consent requirements, the pro-life organization states on its website.
“We would also lose regular inspections of abortion facilities, meaning that hair and nail salons would face greater scrutiny than abortion centers,” theorganization continued.
The amendment would keep these laws in place and allow state lawmakers to pass other protections for mothers and unborn babies, especially if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this summer.
To amend the Pennsylvania Constitution, the amendment language must pass the state House and Senate twice and then be approved by a majority of voters on the ballot.
Companies are being forced to take a stand on moral issues like abortion even if it’s bad for business.
Two of the most sacred tenets of a liberal economy are the notions of moral neutrality and free markets. Wall Street does not get involved in personal beliefs and mores because it is bad for business. As long as the right of property and contracts are respected, the classical liberal is unconcerned with clashing religious beliefs. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
The time of moral neutrality is ending. Public companies will soon be forced to make decisions bearing on moral issues, even when they hurt their bottom lines. They will soon be violating free markets by refusing to serve carved out sectors that do not conform to leftist “moral” standards.
The threat comes from giant index funds and activist investors telling board members how to run their businesses and select their markets. Many conservatives have complained about what is called the ESG rating system. This liberal compliance tool rates companies on how they comply with environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) targets. With the Roe v. Wade controversy, some activist stockholders are adding an A for abortionto the ESG acronym.
With the restrictions on procured abortion, more and more activists and index funds will be interrupting stockholder meetings with pro-abortion proposals. The new radicals will be breaking the liberal economic rule by introducing the culture wars into financial domains. Public companies should safeguard the interests of stockholding owners, not social justice activists who want to destroy the free market and hurt their bottom lines.
The activists are framing the abortion debate in financial terms to give the appearance of propriety. For example, they are asking mainstream firms like Lowes and Walmart to compile reports evaluating the costs of restricting abortion on employee hiring and retention. Fortunately, this proposal failed with only 13 percent of votes in favor at Walmart and 32 percent at Lowes. These initial efforts signaled the will of activists to turn abortion into an economic issue in much the same way that they have weaponized environmental and diversity concerns to force companies to submit to non-economic metrics.
The suggested actions go beyond mere impact reports. With enough votes, the activists can change boards of directors or decide marketing strategies. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article (6/4-5/22), the new revolutionaries can even dictate where companies do business.
Such measures would destroy a free market and create ghetto zones where woke companies dare not tread. It would segregate consumers, creating a cultural apartheid system based on people’s beliefs.
Abortion promoters complain that those who defend life impose their morality upon the population. The new stockholder revolutionaries hope to impose their immoral law upon the population. They set themselves up as autocrats where the rule of sin and vice determine policy in the marketplace. The enormous power of the dollar is put at the service of those who destroy life in this new abortion apartheid regime.
The revolutionaries do not only change company policy but also distort economic reality. The effort to frame the debate in financial terms likewise imposes skewed economics on the nation.