Rasmussen: Half of all Likely Voters Approve decision to dump Roe

By Rubashov

A fresh poll out Tuesday reports that “even though more voters identify as pro-choice than pro-life, fully half of them approve of the recent Supreme Court ruling that overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.” That’s remarkable.

The poll – a Rasmussen national telephone and online survey – finds that 50 percent of likely voters in the United States approve of the Supreme Court abortion ruling, including 38 percent who strongly approve of the decision. 45 percent disapprove of the Supreme Court’s ruling, including 38 percent who strongly disapprove. The ruling allows each state to determine its own laws regarding abortion.

The poll asked three questions:

1) Generally speaking, on the issue of abortion, do you consider yourself pro-choice or pro-life?

2) The Supreme Court recently overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, so that each state can now determine its own laws regarding abortion. Do you approve or disapprove of the court overturning Roe v. Wade?

3) How important will the issue of abortion rights be in this year's congressional elections?

Among Republican voters, 75 percent approve of the Supreme Court’s decision while just 20 percent disapprove. 71 percent of Democrats disapprove of the ruling, but 25 percent approve. Voters not affiliated with either major party are more closely divided, with 53 percent approving the court’s decision and 42 percent disapproving.

52 percent of voters self-identify as generally pro-choice on the issue of abortion, while 41 percent view themselves as pro-life. 78 percent of pro-choice voters disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision, while 88 percent of pro-life voters approve of the ruling.

Voters overwhelmingly believe the abortion issue will matter in November. 75 percent expect abortion to be an important issue in this year's congressional elections, including 54 percent who think it will be very important. Only 22 percent of voters don’t believe abortion will be important in the fall midterm elections.

72 percent of Democrats, 41 percent of Republicans, and 47 percent of unaffiliated voters say abortion will be a very important issue in this year's congressional elections. 74 percent of voters who self-identify as pro-choice, compared with 33 percent of those who say they are pro-life, expect abortion to be a very important issue.

More women voters (55 percent) than men (49 percent) self-identify as pro-choice, and more women voters (59 percent) than men (48 percent) believe the abortion issue will be very important in this year’s congressional elections.

With inflation at its highest for nearly 50 years and a recession looming, economic issues are the most important to American voters. And with nothing much to commend themselves, incumbent Democrats like Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05) have jumped on the abortion issue in an attempt to rally their base.

And this is where the lies begin.

In a fundraising appeal emailed on Monday, Gottheimer’s campaign wrote: “And after last week’s devastating SCOTUS opinion on Roe v. Wade – Pallotta DOUBLED DOWN in his extremism. Pallotta went as far as to call choice…manslaughter.”

Actually, Frank Pallotta was making an important point about the abortion debate: The reason why so many self-described “pro-choice” voters support the Supreme Court’s decision is because the leaders of the pro-choice movement have turned the moderate “safe and rare” mantra of the Clinton years into a quasi-religious cult that celebrates abortion up to and including the day of birth.

The pro-choice cause was more convincing back when it followed medical science and provided women with an escape hatch, while recognizing the medical facts regarding the viability of the fetus. Arguably, this was a balanced, rational approach that rejected faith-based assertions about the “sanctity of life”. When someone believes life begins is very different from when medical science maintains it is viable.

But then “pro-choice” radicals took control of the debate away from moderates like former President Bill Clinton. For folks like Chelsea Handler, abortion became a kind of holy sacrament, and it got nuts. Now it was the “pro-choice” folks who were advancing a faith-based mantra and rejecting medical science. Guys like Josh Gottheimer, trying to stay one-step ahead of a primary, got caught up in the wave and started voting that way.

Before labeling Frank Pallotta an “extremist” on abortion, the Gottheimer crew might want to remember the company he’s keeping. Like… go try and have a day-of-birth abortion in Israel and see what happens.

In Israel, a woman must go before a “termination committee” made up of two licensed physicians and a social worker to receive permission to get an abortion. No surprise then that the rate of abortion in Israel is much lower than in the United States. According to Wikipedia:

“There are 41 termination committees operating in public or private hospitals across Israel. These committees consist of three members, two of which are licensed physicians, and one a social worker. Of the two physicians, one must be a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology, and the other one either OB/GYN, internal medicine, psychiatry, family medicine, or public health. At least one member must be a woman. Six separate committees consider abortion requests when the fetus is beyond 24 weeks old.”

In France, abortion on demand is legal during the first 14 weeks from conception. Abortions at later stages of pregnancy are only allowed if two physicians certify that the abortion will be done “to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; a risk to the life of the pregnant woman; or that the child will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognized as incurable.”

In Argentina abortion is legal on demand in the first 14 weeks of gestation. Wikipedia notes: “The abortion law was liberalized after the Voluntary Interruption of Pregnancy Bill (Argentina) was passed by the National Congress in December 2020. According to the law, any woman can request the procedure at any public or private health facility. Doctors are legally bound to either perform it or, if they are conscientious objectors, refer the patient to another physician or health facility. Only four other Latin or South American countries have legalized abortion on request: Cuba in 1965, Guyana in 1995, Uruguay in 2012 and Colombia in 2022. According to polling in 2021, around 44% of Argentinians support the legalization of abortion on request; other polls showed 50–60% of Argentinians opposed the bill.”

Abortion in Australia mirrors what we might see here soon. Wikipedia writes: “It has been fully decriminalized in all jurisdictions, starting with Western Australia in 1998 and lastly in South Australia in 2021. Access to abortion varies between the states and territories: surgical abortions are readily available on request within the first 16 to 24 weeks of pregnancy, although with no limit on gestational term in the Australian Capital Territory. Later term abortions generally require the approval of two doctors, though are heavily restricted in Western Australia after 20 weeks.”

Abortion in South Africa is legal on request during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and under certain conditions afterwards. “A woman of any age can get an abortion on request with no reasons given if she is less than 12 weeks pregnant. If she is between 13 and 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion if (a) her own physical or mental health is at stake, (b) the baby will have severe mental or physical abnormalities, (c) she is pregnant because of incest, (d) she is pregnant because of rape, or (e) she is of the personal opinion that her economic or social situation is sufficient reason for the termination of pregnancy. If she is more than 20 weeks pregnant, she can get the abortion only if her or the fetus' life is in danger or there are likely to be serious birth defects.”

In October 2021, new rules came into effect in India governing abortions. The gestation period for terminating a pregnancy with 1 doctor's opinion was extended from 12 weeks to 20 weeks, with the rule being expanded to include unmarried women. For termination of pregnancy with 2 doctors' opinions it was extended from 20 weeks to 24 weeks for the following special categories: survivors of sexual assault or rape or incest, minors, change of marital status during the pregnancy (widowhood and divorce), women with physical disabilities, mentally ill women, the fetal anomalies that have substantial risk of being incompatible with life or if the child is born it may suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities to be seriously handicapped, women with pregnancy in humanitarian settings or disaster or emergency. A medical board determines requests for termination of a pregnancy longer than 24 weeks in the cases of fetal anomalies. The board examines the woman and her reports and approves or denies the request within 3 days.

In Ukraine, abortion is legal on request only during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Between 12 and 28 weeks, abortion is available on a variety of grounds, with the approval of a board of physicians. That’s up to 28 weeks – not 40 weeks!

About the only countries that would agree with the Gottheimer campaign’s assessment of Frank Pallotta are North Korea and Red China. Hey Josh, looks like you need to be more careful with the company you keep. You sound kind of, well, extremist.

Is Josh Gottheimer guilty of improperly using his office?

By Rubashov

So, it wasn't a real invitation to a real event? Just a political ploy?

Did InsiderNJ’s Fred Snowflack pull the curtain back on Congressman Josh Gottheimer – or did Gottheimer do it to himself?

On March 22nd Congressman Gottheimer sent a formal invitation – on his official stationery – to the Sussex County Board of Commissioners. The invitation was to join him for a “briefing” by the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness (NJOHSP) on “the latest domestic terror threats in our State.”

The invitation, signed by Congressman Gottheimer, did not contain the date and time of said briefing or the location at which it was to be held. It did contain this paragraph:

“I will follow up with specific details on the briefing with NJOHSP and look forward to working together to stop hate, domestic terror, and extremism in all forms. In the meantime, please contact me directly at Josh.Gottheimer@mail.house.gov with any questions. Thank you for your service.”

But Congressman Gottheimer never did follow up with specific details. According to Snowflack, he instead used it as a political hit piece on the Commissioners and, more importantly, on his constituents who reside in Sussex County. On a March 25th post on InsiderNJ, Snowflack wrote:

“Today, Gottheimer, whose 5th District includes most of Sussex County, released a letter he sent to the county commissioners on March 22.
In case, the commissioners have any doubt about the specter of white supremacy, the Democratic congressman is ready to help. His letter invites the commissioners ‘to join me and the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness for a briefing on the latest domestic terror threats in our state.’
It then notes that for the first time the state’s Homeland Security Office has raised the threat level posed by white supremacists to ‘high,’ putting them in a class with ‘ISIS-inspired terrorists.’
Gottheimer adds that three far-right groups in particular – the Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and Three Percenters – are active in Sussex County.
That’s an interesting point.
As the debate raged over the hate-related resolutions, some speakers said condemning extremism is needed, because of the presence in the county of those very groups. Commissioners, as is their apparent custom, didn’t respond to the speakers’ point.
When the issue of political violence from the right is raised – as it has been many times since Jan. 6 – some Republicans point out violence caused by the far left.
So, Gottheimer’s letter also mentions ‘individuals inspired by antifa ideology.’
But make no mistake. The congressman’s main point is about the dangers of right wing extremism. And in Sussex County.”

Well, let’s look at this for a moment. Let us examine the statement: “for the first time the state’s Homeland Security Office has raised the threat level posed by white supremacists to ‘high,’ putting them in a class with ‘ISIS-inspired terrorists.’”

Are the groups mentioned here – the Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and Three Percenters – which are labeled by Gottheimer as “white supremacists”, actually in a “class with ISIS-inspired terrorists”?

ISIS is officially designated as a “terrorist organization” by the United Nations, the European Union, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Canada, China, Egypt, India, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Paraguay, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Paraguay, Syria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The Oathkeepers and Three Percenters don’t make the list.

The Proud Boys make the list in Canada, just as CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) made the list in the United Arab Emirates. Curiously, CAIR’s designation as a “terrorist organization” didn’t stop Congressman Gottheimer from praising and seeking electoral assistance from Action Together, a group that has coordinated activities with CAIR and has even accepted awards from them.

We can point to numerous activities in which CAIR has worked closely with Democrat Party activists throughout Congressman Gottheimer’s district – everything from voter registration drives to protest rallies. Why did it not earn a mention in Gottheimer’s missive?

In fact, CAIR is closely linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, which is a designated “terrorist organization” in Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Kazakhstan, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and the United Arab Emirates.

Given this, Congressman Gottheimer’s assertion about the “threat level posed” seems histrionic, hysterical even. In fact, everything in his “invitation” seems less about the work of government and simply a political hit – albeit one paid for by the taxpayers.

Then there is Congressman Gottheimer’s claim that “the Proud Boys, Oathkeepers and Three Percenters are active in Sussex County.” Are they?

It has been polled you know. Recently.

Nobody heard of them. Nobody knows anyone who is a member. And, by-the-way, nobody thinks Sussex County is particularly racist. Or that their neighbors are racists. Or that “white supremacy” is prevalent.

Why would they? Sussex County is one of the least violent, safest places in America. People move from places like Bergen County and New York City to enjoy all that it offers. It has more incidents of agricultural trespassing than bias crimes.

Now we are all aware that the designation of what is or isn’t a “terrorist organization” is a highly political exercise. Joe Cryan’s beloved Irish Nationalists were all once labeled “terrorists”. Even Nelson Mandela was once designated a “terrorist”. So was Menachem Begin, who went on to become the Prime Minister of Israel. It was Begin who, as the leader of a militant paramilitary group, ordered the bombing attack on the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. 91 people – British, Arabs, and Jews – died in that bombing.

Is Congressman Gottheimer suggesting that Sussex County is a hotbed for activity of the kind practiced by Menachem Begin? If so, where are the crime statistics? No, instead of crimes, we are told about “incidents”. These mainly involve people posting on-line or handing out reading material that other people find offensive – which, in America, is perfectly legal. Other “incidents” involve rude or anti-social behavior which, if it becomes criminal, should be dealt with as the law instructs.

In his rush to stamp out all such “incidents” Congressman Gottheimer runs the risk of creating a species of thought crime and of packing our already packed-out prison system with a new kind of prisoner – a political prisoner. This is not the way forward if you wish to continue to use that name, democracy.

Here to instruct Congressman Gottheimer on the difference between “crimes” and “incidents” is the great Ira Glasser, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) from 1978 to 2001…

Now this isn’t the first time Congressman Gottheimer has used his office to play political tricks.  Earlier this year he held a press conference on “hate” at the Sussex County Community College and claimed to have had invited the County Commissioners and the state legislative delegation, which he had not.  And then there was the time he crashed the county vaccination center – had his staff members threat face with some sheriff’s officers and then dared them to arrest him – all over a photo op.  Weird.
 
Weirder still is the political angle to all this.  Does he have data showing that his constituents in Sussex County want to believe they live in a violent, racist hellhole and that they and their children are all bad, bad racists?  That’s not a very positive message. 
 
It appears that, in the wake of the January 6th Capitol Riot, a number of Democrats have seized upon it as their Reichstag Fire moment.  They want to use it to criminalize their political opponents to the point that they, once again, enjoy the “permanent majority” they held during the forty years before Newt Gingrich undid it in 1994.  It is a dangerous game that appears to have carried them along to this moment.
 
Of course, Josh Gottheimer is an old hand at playing with fear.  His former boss, President Bill Clinton, played on the fear of “Black” crime for votes and now he is trying to convince people that their real threat is their neighbor (as opposed to corrupt, rapacious politicians like himself).  But it’s a dodgy strategy, because their neighbor is likely to disprove what Gottheimer is selling.
 
Yes, the strategy is a little crazy.  Just like Katie Rotondi, the organizer the Congressman got to pull together the twenty or so Democrats (mostly failed candidates) to represent what Fred Snowflack takes to be “the people” of Sussex County.  Rejected county candidates, rejected municipal candidates, some even rejected by their own party… like Rotondi herself.  Their words will come back to haunt him (and they were all publicly recorded), because the intention in them was so plain:  To them Sussex County is an evil, bad place, full of “white supremacists” and “violent racists” who refused to vote for any of them.  And so, of course, the Democrats, the failed candidates, hate them for it.  This is the just the way some folks deal with the sting of rejection.
  
 

“One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror.”
George W. Bush