We Hear You: In Praise of Real Journalism on Protests at Justices’ Homes

7

Editor’s note: The Daily Signal’s audience appreciates our continuing coverage of pro-abortion protests outside the homes of Supreme Court justices in the wake of a leaked abortion ruling, according to this week’s dip into the mailbag at [email protected] See for yourself.—Ken McIntyre

Dear Daily Signal: Your news producer, Douglas Blair, exemplifies and promotes the kind of real journalism that makes a difference (“What I Saw When Protesters Marched to Justice Alito’s House“).

In college, I was a far-left activist and feminist, the first male to be trained to be a “family planning counselor” on my campus in New York state. I also volunteered at the front desk of the Planned Parenthood branch in the nearby city, deliberately placed to put a male on display to promote responsibility on the part of males in birth control.

I was devoted to the so-called pro-choice position. I turned away from that pro-abortion position and became pro-life, however, when I saw yet another young, traumatized girl walk out of the building weeping and looking drained of life. Which she was, literally speaking. 

Experiencing her post-abortion trauma (after guiding her in at the front desk) opened me up to the unmistakable violence of any and all abortion procedures inflicted upon both the baby and the mother. 

I became involved in Operation Rescue in California after graduation and participated in acts of civil disobedience by blocking abortion clinics and risking arrest. Those were “ground zero” circumstances to gain insight into the extremism of which the pro-abortion movement is capable. 

>>> Read Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion

For instance, as we locked arms at a clinic in Tustin, California, shutting it down, a radical protester wearing a Supreme Court-style robe and a skeleton mask rubbed a crucifix against his or her crotch, then lifted the mask and spit directly in my face.  

Blair’s article for The Daily Signal on the protest outside Alito’s house provides citizens with the information they need to make decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments. 

Not just with words painting pictures, but with words underscoring pictures. The visual aspect of Blair’s videos take his coverage out of the realm of potential bias and squarely into the realm of fact, of “this is what happened.” 

And in a world where weaponization of the news seems commonplace, it is very much appreciated.—Dan Hennessy, Geneva, N.Y.

***

Thanks to Douglas Blair for his comprehensive article headlined “What I Saw When Protesters Marched to Supreme Court Justices’ Homes.
               
Now let’s apply the law on protecting judges.—Gary Valasek, Adams County, Ohio

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 170215_DS_letters-editor_v2-1-60-1024x246.pngThis image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 170215_DS_letters-editor_v2-1-60-1024x246.png

Dear Daily Signal: Since women can’t spontaneously get pregnant, it would seem that a man must be involved. Where is the concern for the fathers? Do they not have a voice in the debate?

If a woman has the right to choose, why does she not have the right, even obligation, to choose some type of contraception? Surely the easy, and inexpensive, availability of such items is far cheaper than an abortion.

That right to choose is never mentioned.—D. Rickey

***

The so-called protesters outside the houses of Supreme Court justices look like they are singing in a choir. 

Fox News and The Daily Signal should spend time investigating and reporting who is funding and organizing events of this nature.—Gus Hightower 

***

They can march and whimper all they want. As long as the children clean up before bedtime.—Ken Rizzo 

***

Who is protesting against murder?—John Marshall 

A Mother’s Abortion Story, and More

Dear Daily Signal: I just read the article on abortion from a sweet lady, Cathy Harris, who stood up and had the strength to write it (“I Had an Abortion. Here’s Why I Want Roe Reversed.”).

While reading of her struggles and decision to stand up and fight back, the thought entered my mind that if liberals are so headstrong about letting illegal aliens into our country, why are they so hellbent on pursuing the abortion issue?

Look at the figures for aborted Americans. If liberals had allowed those babies to live, there would be no need for their initiative to let illegal aliens into our country. 

It seems the only conscience over abortion is felt by women who first were subjected to, and convinced of, this form of “birth control.” The psychological fallout is grief, guilt, shame, and unforgettable regrets.

I pray this form of murder is erased. I agree wholeheartedly with Cathy Harris, because she is not alone. Millions of us out here are still dealing with the consequences of this bad decision.

We need to stand together and fight against this evil. I wish it on no one.—S. Quinnland 

***

Thanks to Thomas Jipping for his explanation of the proposed abortion law from leftist U.S. senators (“Democrats Push Radical Abortion Bill Far More Expansive Than Roe”).

 As a Catholic, it’s scary to see how the influence of the evil one can cause human beings to inflict death on the most vulnerable among us.

Not to see what this is actually doing to a baby is mind-boggling to an intelligent person.—Mike Cancienne

***

The violation of the federal law, cited by Cal Thomas, against protesting, marching, or harassing a member of our court system—whether jury, lawyer, or judge—carries a mild punishment {“Left’s Intimidation of Justices Is Illegal, but Will Biden Enforce the Law?“).

It may be time to intensify the punishment substantially. These ignorant protesters who engage in such activity outside Supreme Court justices’ houses have no concept of the basics of their constitutional rights. If they did, they wouldn’t be engaged in such atrocious behavior, regardless of whether left or right on the political spectrum. 

The Constitution sets up the responsibilities of all three divisions of the federal government, with the clear intent of a balance of power. The courts are there to punish wrongdoers under existing law, and the members of the court system must maintain complete subjection to the law, remaining out of politics. Otherwise, everyone has no protection, as is the case today in communist nations such as China.

The unfortunate blurring of lines among our legislative, executive, and judicial branches is resulting in what we are seeing. It begins with the person who leaked the draft Supreme Court decision on abortion, runs rampant through the lips of Nancy Pelosi, and ends up in the streets with uninformed, easily persuaded people demonstrating outside the homes of the justices, clearly trying to intimidate those whose calling is to make a decision of law, not politics.

Politicians often get it right, but sometimes get it wrong. The job of the courts is to be certain that politicians’ decisions (legislated law) pass muster with our Constitution. And that is much bigger than Roe v. Wade or any other highly politicized effort generated either by legislators or the president. 

Perhaps it is time to pass legislation punishing members of Congress and the president for inciting the ignorant to break a law that protects not only individuals but an important element of our constitutional system, the Supreme Court.—Ronald G. McCormick, Tampa

Considering ‘2,000 Mules’

Dear Daily Signal: Thank you, thank you, thank you to Dinesh D’Souza for his amazing documentary “2,000 Mules,” the subject of Deroy Murdock’s commentary, and to the other wonderful patriots who did the painstaking research to uncover the blatant voter fraud in the 2020 election (“Film ‘2,000 Mules’ Offers Vivid Proof of Voter Fraud”).

When will a court (and then, on appeal, The Supreme Court) ever agree to simply view the evidence that enough fraud occurred to steal an election from a duly elected president of the United States? 

How can this criminal activity be glossed over and allowed to continue? God bless your efforts to bring to light the truth.—Mark Knopf 

***

At the risk of sounding condescending or worse, I express my sincerest appreciation for commentator Deroy Murdock and his influence in our media—namely here on The Daily Signal.

There is a special place in my heart for folks who have higher cultural peaks to climb to reach the precipice—the narrow path—of truth. Thank you.—Greg La Manna, Santa Clarita, Calif.

***

I can hardly wait to see the documentary “2,000 Mules.” I have hope that the film will open even more eyes and minds. Using these cheats’ smartphones against them is sheer brilliance.

Then throw in stories such as old-age and nursing homes with 100% voter participation. Really? The pandemic became their chance to steamroll anyone who differed ideologically.

It remains to be seen if America will remain free. To live, to work, to vote your conscience.—Jean Parker, Virginia

***

My problem is that while I’m eager to view “2,000 Mules,” I can’t find a way to do it. The film’s website listed a local theater, but when I called the theater about tickets, they said they had no knowledge of the film.

One critic said he found the film heart-wrenching and that every person concerned about the nation’s future must see it. How can we see it, when clearly the left is doing everything possible to squelch it?—Joseph Meehan 

Mandating ‘They’ Instead of ‘He’ or ‘She’

Dear Daily Signal: I write in response to Fred Lucas’ article headlined “Team Biden Prescribes Use of Singular ‘They’ in ‘Gender Inclusive’ Policy.” Using the plural pronoun “they” with a singular subject is jarring to the ear and eye. “They” is plural, plain and simple.

In the article, Lucas cites the Labor Department bureaucrats’ example of using “they” with a singular subject: “If an employee reports a violation, they [sic] should tell their [sic] supervisor to let them [sic] know in advance.”  

There is an easy way to avoid this subject/pronoun mismatch. Change the subject to plural: “If employees report a violation, they should tell their supervisor … ” 

Voila! Problem solved. Of course, such a simple solution deprives the bureaucrats of the opportunity to make a “gender neutral” point.  

In another example in the article, the bureaucrats would have us refer to “Alex” as “they,” as in “they are a hard worker.” Nonsense. 

Alex can pick his (or her) own name, but he doesn’t get to rewrite the rules of grammar and pick his own pronouns. When I hear of bureaucrats writing policies of this nature, it tells me they don’t have enough work to do.

One more thing: When my college students write so sloppily, there is a lot of red ink on their returned papers.—Rich Zeis, Walker, Iowa  

***

Prescribing speech is truly outlandish. I have a workaround for that Labor Department directive that Fred Lucas reported on, since “they” is not a singular pronoun.

I would use “that person” or “this person.” Only when more than one person is involved would I use “they.”

I wonder what those doing the prescribing will do to the pronouns “you” and “I.”

Also, I hope you do not object to the word “Mr.” instead of the now prescribed “Mx.”—Joanne L. Osborne, Rising Sun, Md.

***

Just to keep it simple, there is no aspect of cultural Marxism that will justify deviation from the conjugation of the irregular verb “to be.”

The singular: I am, you are, and he, she, or it is. The plural: we are, you are, and they are.—Neal Pollack 

***

They thinks this is moronic. Them will not be complying. And mx have no clue where their fits in.—R. Coffey

***

In the spirit of the times, I’ve adopted the preferred pronoun “sheesh.” I expect future perfect tense in any dialogue about me.

And I will readily accept congratulations on my recent engagement to my Venus flytrap houseplant.—Joe Casey 

The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.

View original post