Supreme Court To Carefully Consider Pros, Cons Of Baby Murder

Thanks to Fox News, we all had the opportunity to listen to the discussion of the Mississippi abortion case that was before the Supreme Court..  Literally it was a discussion on the government/Constitutional parameters on the murder of babies in the womb.  The major question is how late or how early can you kill a baby in the womb—as if the baby was a thing, not a human, hence had not right to life.

In California murderers get reprieves from Guv. Newsom—but he wants, up to the moment of birth, the ability of government to grant the right to execution of a baby in the womb.  Let us stop using medical terms, buzz words and neutral terms—we need to use the proper term—murder.  When you kill a baby, that has not committed a crime and been tried and convicted, it is a murder.  That is what “abortion” is—time to use words correctly.

Supreme Court To Carefully Consider Pros, Cons Of Baby Murder, 11/30/21 

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on abortion law this week, where they will carefully weigh the pros and cons of murdering babies with metal tearing instruments and high-powered vacuums.

“Man, this is a tough one! Maybe we should make a list of pros and cons,” said Chief Justice Roberts, according to sources. “Can we end baby murder while staying true to our lofty and convoluted jurisprudence? However we decide this case, we must remember what’s truly important: our political reputations.”

“Um,” said Kavanaugh, “I guess ‘babies not being murdered’ would go in the ‘pro’ column.”

“Yeah, but then CNN might say something bad about us,” said Roberts. “That’s definitely a ‘con’.”

Justices Kagan and Sotomayor disagreed, insisting that ‘babies not being murdered’ should be in the “con” column instead.

The justices went back and forth on the deep complexities of tearing preborn human beings limb from limb, crushing their skulls, and sucking their remains out with a suction device. As they debated, the collected spiritual forces of darkness, such as snarling demons and CNN news crews, descended on the Supreme Court building to voice their opinion that the blood sacrifice of the unborn before the altar of American narcissistic consumerism must be allowed to continue.

The justices are expected to debate this very complex and difficult moral issue until they decide whether they want to guarantee Constitutional protections to all human beings or not.

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.


  1. Rico Lagattuta says

    This is one of those emotional issues that will never be resolved by our judicial system. The logic of this issue was tossed out the window years ago. For some it is a moral issue and for some it is a rights issue. From a judicial position we have complicated our legal system with so many conflicting laws that for every legal position one makes that this behavior is ok, another says it is not. And because we want our emotional position supported, we are asking 9 people to decide if “my position” is right or wrong. Bottom line is that it makes no difference what these 9 people decide. People will do what they believe is best for them. Then their decision will either be legal or illegal.

  2. Already the left is back to considering packing the Court, just because of the questions asked by the conservative justices and before the decision comes down. I predict that the justices will compromise, finding a way to validate the Mississippi law without directly overturning Roe v Wade and the companion case. In the end, it will be more important to the justices to keep the Court of nine than to make the correct decision in any one case.

Speak Your Mind