DV Journal

Activists on both sides of the abortion issue are fighting in Harrisburg over the legal future of the controversial procedure, and they’re both  leveling accusations of “extremism” to make their case.

Supporters of legal abortion point to a proposed amendment to the state constitution from abortion opponents, “providing that there is no right to abortion or funding for an abortion.” The resolution, condemned as “extreme” by its opponents, passed the GOP-controlled legislature last week.

In order for it to take effect, it must pass again in the next legislative session, and then voters must approve it in a referendum, possibly in 2023.

Gov. Tom Wolf (D) has jumped into the fray, issuing an executive order that the state would refuse to honor any warrant from another state for a person charged with a criminal violation involving reproduction. The order also protects healthcare professionals. Wolf stated in a press release he has vetoed three abortion-related bills.

Pro-life organizations called Wolf’s actions “extreme.”

“With his vetoes on these pro-life bills, Gov. Wolf brags about his support of late-term abortion, as well as his support for ripping babies apart limb by limb, aborting babies that have Down syndrome, and putting women with ectopic pregnancies at more risk,” said Dan Bartkowiak, director of communications for Pennsylvania Family Institute. “This is an appalling display of extreme pro-abortion politics that are out of touch with Pennsylvania families. Sadly, this has come to be expected from a governor that is a former volunteer for Planned Parenthood and has received significant campaign contributions from the abortion industry.”

Marlene Downing, deputy director for Pennsylvania for the Susan B. Anthony List, said, “The majority of Pennsylvanians who are pro-abortion do not want the restrictions already in place to go away.” These include the 24-week limit and preventing minors from undergoing the procedure without parental consent.

“Hopefully, the constitutional amendment will be passed,” she said. The amendment would not ban abortion in Pennsylvania, but it would help prevent current limits on abortion from being removed by a future legislature, she said.

Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates Executive Director Signe Espinoza took the opposite position. She said in a statement the legislature has “taken a significant step toward forcing their radical anti-abortion agenda into the Pennsylvania Constitution.” She complained the process was rushed and the vote taken “under the cover of darkness.”

“Anti-abortion legislators have advanced a bill that will take rights out of our constitution. The bill can pass again in January, be on the 2023 primary ballot, and lead to abortion bans by this time next summer.

“This is the most expedited timeline possible, and we know that these extremists have been planning for this since they stacked the United States Supreme Court with the sole goal of overturning Roe v Wade. This process was not transparent, and that was intentional by a far-right majority dead-set on advancing a fringe ideology,” Espinoza said.

The group plans to take “accountability actions” with legislative leaders and also unveil digital billboards, a spokeswoman said.

Downing said the Susan B. Anthony List has been going door-to-door throughout the state, passing out pro-life literature. Some 225,000 households had been reached by early July, she said. Their volunteers also speak with people about their pro-life message when someone is at home.

The literature attacks Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Lt. Gov. John Fetterman and gubernatorial candidate Attorney General Josh Shapiro as “too extreme on abortion.”

“Fetterman opposes all limits on abortion and even defends late-term abortion and taxpayer-funded abortion and denying babies who survive abortion life-saving medical care,” the brochure said.

“Shapiro is a pro-abortion activist who opposes all limits on abortion,” it continued. “Shapiro supports abortion on demand up to the moment of birth, all at taxpayer expense.”

Ironically, both the Fetterman and Shapiro campaigns are running attack ads on television against Dr. Mehmet Oz and Sen. Doug Mastriano, the Republicans running for senator and governor, that call them “extreme” for their pro-life positions.

“We are just educating people about candidates who are extreme on abortion,” said Downing, who is also on the board of the Pro-Life Union Pennsylvania. “Our goal is to talk to Pennsylvanians.” Most residents are “not against abortion or for abortion. They like restrictions on it, that middle ground…We’re talking to all the voters we can.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

When President Joe Biden came to Cleveland on Wednesday to tout his success at keeping Americans on the job, it apparently hit home with one prominent Democrat: U.S. Senate candidate Rep. Tim Ryan was too busy to show up for Biden’s speech.

Ryan, who is in a tough race against Republican J.D. Vance, had “a busy campaign schedule with prior commitments,” his spokesperson told Roll Call.

Ryan wasn’t the only one. The Democrats’ candidate for governor of Ohio, Nan Whaley, was also a no-show for Biden’s appearance.

It’s part of a national trend. Last week, Virginia Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanbeger, when asked if she wanted the president to campaign for her in her swing district, told Fox News, “I intend to do the campaigning myself.” And prominent progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) created headaches for the White House with her recent remarks that if Biden runs for re-election she may not support him.

“We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

Still, Biden is determined to stay on the campaign trail and the head of the Democratic Legislative Campaign told Politico she hopes he will campaign with state legislative candidates in the coming months.

“We have a great relationship with the Biden White House,” said chair Jessica Post. “So we hope that translates into seeing President Biden out campaigning for us, for state legislatures.”

In Pennsylvania, where 54 percent of voters have a negative view of Biden, that may be wishful thinking — even in the blue environs of the Delaware Valley. While gubernatorial candidate Josh Shapiro insists he would welcome the president to join him on the campaign trail, the question is whether other Keystone State Democrats feel the same.

Delaware Valley Journal reached out to seven Democratic candidates for both state House and Senate across the region, asking if they would be willing to appear with Biden. Only one responded.

“With the national attention on this election, I am confident that public officials from both parties will be visiting our area,” Ann Marie Mitchell, Democratic nominee in state Senate District 6 in Bucks County, said in a statement.

She added she hopes that and other efforts by her team will lead to higher voter turnout and engagement in the campaign, but declined to say whether she would appear with Biden if given the chance.

The other six candidates contacted included incumbents like state Sen. Katie Muth (D-Chester/Montgomery) and state Rep. Danielle Friel-Otten (D-HD155), and challengers like Cathy Spahr in House District 160 (Delaware/Chester), and Jill Dennin in Senate District 24 (Montgomery/Bucks/Berks).

“When it comes to Democrats in tough elections, I guess Joe Biden doesn’t ‘have a friend in Pennsylvania,'” quipped GOP strategist Charlie O’Neill. “And who can blame them? Running with Joe Biden this election cycle is like starting a baseball game down 10 runs. Nevertheless, Democrats nominated him, and they have to defend his record. So whether they want to or not, all Democrats on the ballot have to contend with Biden’s lack of success.”

Biden convincingly carried the Delaware Valley in 2020 while outperforming down-ballot candidates and winning some of the districts Democrats hope to flip this November.

However, Biden today is more unpopular than he was in 2020. In a new Harvard/Harris poll, 71 percent of Americans said they do not want him to seek a second term. And a new Civiqs poll put Biden’s approval rating nationwide at just 30 percent.

In 2020, Democrats wanted Biden to be more visible and prominent with their slates of candidates. Now, hoping the fight over abortion will boost their chances in November by energizing their base, Democrats, at least in the Delaware Valley, won’t say if they will appear with the president.

Biden has endorsed U.S. Senate candidate Lt. Gov. John Fetterman and pitched his candidacy in Philadelphia to an AFL-CIO convention. Still, Fetterman has not said whether he would welcome a chance to campaign with the president.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

For another point of view see “Counterpoint: What Would Founders Think of Dobbs Decision? Not Much”

When the U.S. Constitution was ratified June 21, 1788, the two men most responsible for its success were Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who, along with John Jay, wrote “The Federalist Papers.”

Four years later, they had markedly different approaches to interpreting the document they helped create.

Hamilton, perhaps because he wanted a national bank that wasn’t mentioned in the Constitution along with an active central government, came to interpret the Constitution as being open-ended: if something isn’t prohibited by the document, it is allowed — or as he and his Federalist friends might have put it, implied.

By contrast, the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, along with friends like Thomas Jefferson, viewed the Constitution as a limiting document: if something is not expressly stated in the Constitution, it is prohibited.

More than two centuries later, the debate between Hamilton and Madison continues to define the two opposing schools of constitutional interpretation. As of June 24, 2022, when the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision was published and Roe v. Wade was overturned, it’s clear Madison won.

One of those schools, and the one that prevailed in the Dobbs decision, is referred to as textualism or, as it is sometimes called, originalism. Madison would have argued for textualism/originalism by describing what we usually do when we look at words and try to figure out their meaning. The textualist/originalist approach first asks judges to apply the text — do what the words say. But it recognizes words can be unclear when applied to varying circumstances. In that event, the originalism part of the approach says to look beyond the words but only to ask what was intended by those who chose — and those who ratified — those words. They can tell you what they meant.

The second school of constitutional interpretation, the Hamilton method, goes beyond limiting rights to what was said and what was intended. This approach, which could be called the Humpty Dumpty school of constitutional interpretation, was best expressed by Humpty himself. You will recall Alice asked him in “Alice in Wonderland” “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” Humpty’s response was that words were not his master. Instead, he said that when he uses a word “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

Now it was conceded by Justice Harry Blackmun in his majority opinion in Roe v. Wade that there were no constitutional words expressly conveying a right to abortion or even any suggestion of an original intent to convey such a right. But, the words were not going to be his master. Instead, he agreed with Humpty Dumpty that it was permissible to shift meanings and invent a constitutional right to an abortion. The lack of an expressed instructional prohibition on abortions was claimed in Roe to permit the finding of a constitutional right to abortion.

It was the Humpty Dumpty logic of Roe v. Wade that led the majority in Dobbs to decide that the question of abortion in our country had a great fall and could not be put together again. Instead, the Dobbs court, recognizing the lack of a constitutional basis for the Roe decision, returned the issue of abortion to the state for legislative resolution.

The Dobbs majority said legislators have to put this together.  James Madison would have approved.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

It is hard to predict the impact of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision on the midterms, but Pennsylvania will be in the center ring.

It’s clear that if state Sen. Doug Mastriano wins in November and succeeds Tom Wolf as governor, Pennsylvania will move to significantly restrict abortion rights. If Attorney General Josh Shapiro succeeds Wolf, Republicans in the legislature would have to override his veto for any bills that even slightly restrict abortions to become law.

So, it was interesting to hear Mastriano’s response to the decision. He stated, “Roe v. Wade is rightly relegated to the ash heap of history. As the abortion debate returns to the states, Pennsylvania must be prepared to lead the nation in being a voice for the voiceless.”

This was expected, but he then pivoted to say, “Pennsylvanians will not be distracted by the hysterics of the left as they exploit this ruling to try to fulfill their far-left agenda. As they struggle with all-time record-high inflation, the people care deeply about the price of gas and groceries, as well as out-of-control crime and good-paying jobs –which is exactly why I will prioritize these issues as their governor.”

This is precisely what Mastriano should be saying.

People see skyrocketing food and energy prices every day. On Monday, June 27, the Wall Street Journal reported that inflation is so bad that gas stations now hold up to $175 of your money when you swipe your credit or debit card. Payment networks can lift the hold once the total of gas purchased is determined, but they report holds can take hours or longer to settle. This raises the risk of overdraft penalties if you use a debit card and the potential of eating up credit limits if you use a credit card.

Shapiro doesn’t talk about any of this. This past weekend he was the star at several rallies that aimed to make people believe that the Supreme Court decision had changed abortion rights in Pennsylvania. It is up to Mastriano to stay on message and repeatedly outline how he would open up Pennsylvania’s energy sources and create jobs.

Media coverage will have a lot to do with how Pennsylvania races play out. I strongly object to the Bucks County Courier Times coverage of a rally by abortion-rights advocates in front of the offices of Bucks County Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick. First, the paper labeled Fitzpatrick as anti-abortion. They did not label Democrat Ashley Ehasz, his opponent in the November election, as pro-abortion.

Ehasz accused Fitzpatrick of “screwing over” a lot of women in the district due to his abortion stance.

In the wake of the Roe decision, The Philadelphia Inquirer said that Democrats would need to flip twelve seats to gain control of the state House in Harrisburg. They speculate that the Democrats’ best chances are in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.

I predict the Inquirer will profile unending numbers of suburban women who usually vote for Republicans to quote them saying this abortion decision is sending them into the voting column of the Democratic Party.

One wild card that might surface to affect the Pennsylvania elections could be the impeachment proceedings against Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner. This week Republicans will choose a select committee of three Republicans and two Democrats to begin an investigation of Krasner.

I think this issue could surface in the governor’s race. Josh Shapiro has been given expanded power to oversee Krasner’s cases by the legislature. He has chosen not to exercise this power and Philadelphia is a lot worse for that decision.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Will the U.S. Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade shape the 2022 midterms?

One of the first tests of how public sentiment came in a poll in the First Congressional District race in Bucks County, a seat held by incumbent Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick.

Democratic challenger Ashley Ehasz hopes to capitalize on the anger that has energized many pro-choice voters since the Supreme Court’s decision last Friday. The poll, conducted by Democratic polling firm Global Strategy Group, found Fitzpatrick leads Ehasz by 7 points with 18 percent undecided. However, when voters were told Fitzpatrick “wants to restrict abortion rights, even if the woman’s life is in danger and in most cases of rape and incest,” the results changed to a 10-point lead for Ehasz, a first-time candidate.

“This just echoes the conversations I have had with people at rallies and knocking doors since Friday’s announcement, which is that when voters learn their congressman had the opportunity to protect their right to an abortion and he refused to, they feel betrayed,” said Ehasz. “Fitzpatrick could have voted to codify Roe v. Wade, but instead he washed his hands of it, and sided with the most extreme members of his party. People feel abandoned, and rightly so.”

Not so fast, the Fitzpatrick campaign countered.

“The language in this partisan poll’s script pertaining to Brian’s voting record on abortion is categorically false, and they know it. This push poll is nothing more than a desperate fundraising ploy from a flailing campaign intended to mislead voters in an attempt to make their campaign relevant,”  said Nancy McCarty,  a Fitzpatrick campaign spokesperson.

According to Global Strategy Group, the poll also shows that 44 percent of voters said they disapproved of Fitzpatrick’s job performance while 33 percent approve. That included 40 percent of Republicans approving with 37 percent disapproving.

The pollsters surveyed 626 likely 2022 General Election voters in the First Congressional District on June 24 and 25. The findings have a margin of error of +/-3.9 percent.

Still, Christopher Nicholas, a veteran Republican consultant, said Ehasz will have a tough time beating incumbent Fitzpatrick.

“Her poll shows that when people find out Fitzpatrick is pro-life and she is pro-choice, her vote percentage goes up above his. Trouble is, no one knows who she is and that won’t be the only issue that the campaigns will talk about,” Nicholas said. “In addition to having no name ID she also has no money, so she has a hard road in front of her.”

Ehasz graduated from West Point and is an Iraq War veteran. She is a former Apache helicopter pilot and company commander. A Bensalem resident, she left the Army to study for a master’s degree at Oxford University.

Fitzpatrick, a former FBI agent and federal prosecutor, was embedded with U.S. Special Forces as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In the 117th Congress, he was elected co-chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus. Fitzpatrick is the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Energy, the Environment, and Cyber, and he was appointed by House leadership to currently serve on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and as a Commissioner on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, also known as the U.S. Helsinki Commission.

U.S. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick

He also serves on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and co-chairs the bipartisan Addiction and Mental Health Task Force.

In addition to being an attorney, Fitzpatrick is both a  certified public accountant and a certified emergency medical technician.

“As state legislatures across America begin to consider legislation on this extremely sensitive topic in response to today’s Supreme Court decision in Dobbs, I urge all state legislatures to always start from a place of empathy and compassion,” Fitzpatrick said in a statement released after the decision.

“Any legislative consideration must start with the process of seeing the world through other people’s eyes, and walking the world in other people’s shoes. Any legislative consideration must always seek to achieve bipartisan consensus that both respects a woman’s privacy and autonomy, and also respects the sanctity of human life. These principles are not mutually exclusive; both can and must be achieved,” he said.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

No matter your views on abortion, today is a day when the U.S. Supreme Court changed history with its Dobbs ruling. And political leaders from Delaware Valley and in races for state office are speaking out about what the historic decision means for Pennsylvania.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Josh Shapiro tweeted: “This is a devastating day in America. A woman’s right to choose now depends on the state in which she lives, and the decision will be made by our next Governor. Doug Mastriano will ban abortion with no exceptions. I will keep abortion legal.”

Writing as attorney general, Shapiro also sent this email: “The Dobbs decision will go down as a shameful moment for our country and for the Court. Today, five Supreme Court Justices upended fifty years of settled law and subjected the health and private lives of millions of American women to the whims of politicians. As a result of today’s decision, every American’s personal freedoms now depend on the state in which they live. Here in Pennsylvania, decisions about your bodies will now be left to elected officials in Harrisburg– giving those politicians more power than women in our commonwealth.”

State Sen. Doug Mastriano, the Republican candidate for governor, told the Delaware Valley Journal, “Roe v. Wade is rightly relegated to the ash heap of history. As the abortion debate returns to the states, Pennsylvania must be prepared to lead the nation in being a voice for the voiceless.

“While this decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a triumph for innocent life, it must not take our focus away from the key issues facing Pennsylvania families.

“Pennsylvanians will not be distracted by the hysterics of the left as they exploit this ruling to try to fulfill their far-left agenda,” Mastriano continued, “as they struggle with all-time record-high inflation, the price of gas and groceries, as well as out-of-control crime and good-paying jobs – which is exactly why I will prioritize these issues as their governor,” Mastriano said.

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Memhet Oz tweeted: “The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is to many considered controversial. I respect those with a different view, but as a heart surgeon I’ve held the smallest of human hearts in the palm of my hand, and I will defend the sanctity of life. I am relieved that protecting the lives of America’s unborn children will once again be decided by the people through their elected representatives. As we lift up life, we must focus on the needs of mothers and children, for whom this decision can be the greatest gift of all.”

Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, a Democrat running for Senate, tweeted, “In Pennsylvania, the Governor’s pen will either protect abortion rights or eliminate them. The stakes can’t be any higher. We MUST elect @JoshShapiroPA He has been an absolute advocate of protecting abortion rights here in Pennsylvania. There is too much on the line.”

And in a statement, Fetterman said, “Deciding how and when to become a mother is a decision that should always be made by a woman and her doctor—not politicians. If there were any doubts left about what’s at stake in this race, it became crystal clear today. The right to an abortion will be on the ballot this November in Pennsylvania.  I will protect abortion rights. Dr. Oz will take them away. It’s that simple.”

How will the decision impact November’s election?

“I think the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe and Casey will undoubtedly become an important part of the fall campaign messaging,” said Berwood A. Yost, director of the Floyd Institute for Public Policy and the Center for Opinion Research at Franklin & Marshall College. “The abortion decision will be a catalyst for some voters, as will the recent decision on guns. In fact, the 2022 midterms are going to have many things for voters to think about, including their feelings about the economy, the direction of the state, and the state’s electoral procedures to name just a few others.

“The most important result of the recent Supreme Court decisions, from a political standpoint, is that they give Democratic candidates something to talk about other than the economy and the president’s performance in office, which most voters don’t feel good about,” said Yost. “It allows them to motivate their base voters and perhaps remind those with weak party attachments about what the consequences of their choice, or failure to choose, might be.”

Christopher P. Borick, political science professor and director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion, said the Supreme Court’s decision could be very important for the Pennsylvania governor’s race.

Other elected officials also weighed in.

“Today’s decision upends almost a half-century of legal precedent and rips away a constitutional right that generations of women have known their entire lives. This dangerous ruling won’t end abortions in this country, but it will put women’s lives at risk,” said U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) via Twitter.

And U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) tweeted, “The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization restores the American people’s ability to determine abortion laws through their elected representatives, as the Constitution requires. Precedents that are wrongly decided should be overturned, just as Brown v. Board of Education was right to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. This ruling is a win for the unborn, the Constitution, and democratic governance.”

“I was 13 when Roe became law of the land. 50 years later an extreme right-wing court has now ended the constitutional right to abortion – politicians can now control a women’s body. I have tears of anger — girls like my 10-year-old granddaughter have less rights than me at 13,” tweeted U.S. Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Montgomery).

Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Delaware/Philadelphia) called the decision “unprecedented” and said it “will have a devastating impact across our country. It is rare in the United States for millions of Americans to wake up with fewer rights than they had the day before, but that is precisely what the court has done here.”

She went on to call it “misguided” and “dangerous.”

U.S. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Chester/Berks) tweeted: “In less than 24 hours, the SCOTUS has ruled that states do NOT have the right to enact measures to protect from gun violence but simultaneously DO have the right to restrict a woman’s right to choose. This isn’t about state’s rights—it’s about advancing a political agenda.”

Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Bucks) said, “As state legislatures across America begin to consider legislation on this extremely sensitive topic in response to today’s Supreme Court decision in Dobbs, I urge all state legislatures to always start from a place of empathy and compassion. Any legislative consideration must start with the process of seeing the world through other people’s eyes, and walking the world in other people’s shoes.

“Any legislative consideration must always seek to achieve bipartisan consensus that both respects a woman’s privacy and autonomy, and also respects the sanctity of human life. These principles are not mutually exclusive; both can and must be achieved…At the core of our democracy must always be the goal of building bridges, not driving wedges.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

When the news leaked that the U.S. Supreme Court was about to overturn Roe v. Wade, some people argued that banning abortions wouldn’t end them. They said that it was much more efficient to examine the root causes behind why a woman would want an abortion and try to eliminate those instead of criminalizing the procedure.

They talked about support for pregnant mothers, expanded daycare, generous medical leave, financial subsidies, an expansion of programs like WIC, and all the other social safety net policies that would encourage a woman to bring a child into the world.

Even though I’m very anti-Roe, I think this is a reasonable position to take. Treat the underlying illness, not the symptom.

Funny how that principle doesn’t translate to other contexts. Take gun violence. Whenever there is a mass shooting, the default position for many of these same people is to demand a ban on guns. Some talk about additional legal restrictions, others talk about creating gun-free zones, and others think we should kill the beast with one direct blow, so to speak, and repeal the Second Amendment.

Going straight to the “ban guns” argument seems very much like the idea that if you overturn Roe, you can eliminate abortion. Some might bicker with the comparison because they don’t equate terminating a pregnancy with killing a human being, but that’s a philosophical point. Regardless of whether you believe the unborn child is human (science has something to say about that), the similarity in the reasoning process is the same:

We oppose killing, therefore, we remove the immediate cause or method of that killing.

But most of the anti-gun crowd prefer to play the “ban guns” card, instead of engaging in a holistic examination of the causes of massacres like those in Buffalo and Texas.

I gave a lecture this week to a group of Drexel students majoring in public health administration. I opened with a comparison between what happened in Uvalde, Texas, and what happened 10 years ago at Sandy Hook. The similarities are chilling.

Adam Lanza was a 20-year-old loner who had no father figure, lived with a mother who ignored his increasingly erratic behavior, and helped him purchase guns for his birthday and other holidays.  Salvador Ramos was an 18-year-old loner who had no father figure, lived with his grandmother (because apparently his mother had a serious drug problem), exhibited disturbing behavior like cutting himself, and he purchased semi-automatic weapons for his birthday.

If we focus only on the guns, we get a skewed picture of why these two young men snapped.

I am far from a gun enthusiast. I’ve never owned one, never shot one, and the only time I saw one in person was when I was dating a police officer years ago and he showed me his vast collection. I looked at those things as I’d look at objects in a museum: not particularly interesting.

I have no problem admitting that the proliferation of guns is a problem that needs to be addressed in a society that has far too many loopholes and allows far too many people to buy guns they shouldn’t have. Not even the great Antonin Scalia, who wrote the Heller decision that recognized an individual right to bear arms, thought that the Second Amendment was absolute.

Anyone who is farther to the right on guns than Scalia is a very scary person.

But again, when we focus on guns, we ignore the other equally important factors that contribute to the bloodshed of innocents. The most important ones are the destruction of the nuclear family and mental health. Whenever you raise the issue of mental health in conjunction with mass shootings, you get pushback from those who treat the mentally ill. They reason that since most of those who suffer from mental illness are not dangerous, it stigmatizes the majority to imply that shooters are “crazy.”  But, as I also mentioned to the students, that’s a function of our desperate need to avoid giving offense.

Who cares if you are offending the mental health community by making the valid point that these teenage shooters are sick?  Are we so immune to the sight of dead children that we worry about some hypothetical stigma for calling out the elephant in the room? Adam Lanza and Salvador Ramos were mentally disturbed. Say it.

The same goes for nuclear families. Those boys came from families where there was no male presence.  Coincidence? Not likely. Say it.

My point is this: If we are capable of considering alternatives to overturning Roe, we should be capable of considering alternatives to repealing the Second Amendment. The solution requires honesty, creativity, and — most of all — guts.

Follow us on social media:Twitter: @DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Radnor Township is ready to break with the rest of Pennsylvania, at least when it comes to abortion.

On Monday, the township commissioners voted to advance an ordinance that would prohibit the use of township resources to enforce any new abortion restrictions the state might put into place if Roe v. Wade is overturned as many U.S. Supreme Court watchers expect.

George Badey, chair of the Radnor Democrats, touted the proposed ordinance in his May newsletter and asked members to come out and support it. “We will not tolerate the GOP using Radnor taxpayer-funded local law enforcement resources to take away the currently existing rights that Pennsylvania women have had for almost 50 years!” Badey wrote.

BOC Vice President Jack Larkin offered an overview of the ordinance at Monday’s meeting.

“What this would do (is) to preclude the police or any other township employee from using township resources including their salaries to affect an arrest or otherwise investigate, prosecute, or penalize abortion as it is currently permitted in Pennsylvania,” he said. “This would essentially freeze the right to abortion here within Radnor Township.”

Current Pennsylvania law bans abortions after the 24th week unless the woman’s life or health are at risk.

Commissioner Lisa Borowski, who is running to be a state representative, said the ordinance, if adopted, would protect a woman’s right to make her own medical decisions.

“Overturning Roe v. Wade would put state and local leaders on the front lines to protect women’s rights,” she said. “Tonight, we are takings steps to protect a woman’s right to choose.

“I deeply value the doctor-patient relationship and I don’t believe we should be putting our police in the middle of that relationship.”

The vote was 4-2 with one abstention. Larkin, Borowski, Maggy Myers, and Board President Moira Mulroney voted yes.

AnnaMarie Jones and Jake Abel voted no. Both expressed concerns that the ordinance, if passed, would place undue restrictions on the township’s police force.

“I voted “no” primarily because of the uncertainty of what the unintended consequences would be if police are kept from investigating a call -no matter what the issue is,” Jones said. “There could be criminality above and beyond a reproductive issue. That being said, I am in support of women being able to make their own healthcare choices and will stand with my colleagues to find a way to protect women and physicians in our community if Roe is overturned.”

And most residents agree with her, she said.

“Many say it’s too soon. Roe hasn’t been overturned and we have the Delaware County district attorney saying he won’t prosecute women and doctors. I’m prepared to pivot based on the Supreme Court’s future decision, if women and practitioners will become targets, who our governor will be in 2023, and what the majority of constituents are feeling at the time,” she said.

Commissioner Sean Farhy abstained.

Marlene Downing. who serves on the board of the Prolife Union of Greater Philadelphia, was dismayed by the board’s action.

“We are saddened by the township’s decision to come against state law if Roe v. Wade is overturned,” she said. “We don’t believe any city should be excited to be an ‘abortion sanctuary.’ This places a very dark label on Radnor Township where the end of innocent human life will be a main attraction.”

Like Jones and Abel, Downing expressed concern that the ordinance, as it now stands, undermines the township’s police department.

“The fact that local jurisdictions feel comfortable in overturning higher authorities depicts the state of our country. Where is the order? Local police departments being forced to abstain from investigation of criminal activity regarding abortion is very concerning. We should all be concerned,” she said.

A final vote will likely be taken in June before the Supreme Court is expected to rule on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a Mississippi law banning abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy.

A leaked draft of an opinion by Justice Sam Alito appears to show a majority of the court is prepared to overturn the controversial Roe v. Wade decision in its ruling on the Dobbs case.

Abortion is certain to be a hot topic in the Pennsylvania gubernatorial race. The Republican candidate, state Sen. Doug Mastriano  (R-Franklin) has called for a ban on abortions in the state with no exceptions for rape or incest. Democrats and their allies are spending $6 million on ads attacking Mastriano’s stance on the issue.

His Democratic opponent, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, is pro-choice.

Follow us on social media: Twitter: @DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Parent Fenicia Redman started to give the Great Valley School Board an earful about an assignment in her son’s 11th-grade honors history class–to interview an expert on abortion. But as she spoke, the board left the room rather than hear her or look at a poster showing the assignment.

As Redman continued to speak, a security guard came up to her asking her to stop.

“It’s been five months since this board has acknowledged that minors have access in the library to sexually-explicit material as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court,” Redman said. “Tonight, I have new disturbing information that the library and the 11th grade honors government team developed an abortion interview template.”

“The librarian and the 11th-grade honors team developed an abortion interview template,” said Redman. “This is from the teacher’s arsenal.”

Previously, Redman met with her son’s teacher and the assistant principal about the interview template, which lists links to Planned Parenthood and an abortion clinic in Chester County but not to right-to-life groups.

Redman told board members the librarian, who had developed the abortion template, also posted a tweet threatening U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett that was deleted after parents complained.

“To LGBTQ students, your parents love you,” said Redman at the end of her speech after the board left. Then she told heterosexual students, “Please extend kindness to your LGBTQ peers.”

Other parents spoke to the board about inappropriate books that they believe are pornographic in various school libraries.

Redman previously brought that issue to the attention of former Republican Congressman Lou Barletta, who was running for governor. Barletta later held a press conference on the topic.

After the abrupt recess, other parents talked about who the objective arbiter is for which books can stay and which must go. They also questioned why certain teachers try to force their worldview on students and said parents should be able to determine what material is acceptable for their children.

However, East Whiteland resident Christy Largent said she supports the controversial book “Gender Queer.” It is “a graphic biography of a young female who wants to be male but has to figure out how to incorporate her female body into that fantasy.”

“I found the memoir to be enlightening and a worthwhile read as it takes the reader through the author’s journey of self-acceptance,” Largent said. “Just because a book makes a person uncomfortable, it doesn’t make it harmful.”

Parents at several  Delaware Valley districts have objected to that book, including West Chester Area School District, Central Bucks, and Radnor.

Since many parents got a front-row seat to what their kids were learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, many are telling school boards that they don’t approve of various materials. Along with sexually graphic books, parents have objected to lessons in Critical Race Theory, which teaches students that Blacks are victims and Whites are oppressors.

A spokeswoman for the Great Valley School District did not respond to a request for comment.

Follow us on social media:Twitter:@DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

In the wake of a leaked U.S. Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is expected to bring the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) back to the Senate floor. However, he is almost certain to lack the 60 votes needed for cloture — allowing the bill to come to the Senate floor for a vote — or even 50 votes to pass it. On Feb. 28,  Sen. Manchin (D-W. Va.) voted with the Republicans to block it.

In February, Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), who is sometimes described as prof-life, voted to advance the bill with the rest of his Democratic colleagues. His office did not respond to a request to comment on whether he will vote that way again next week.

Casey’s stance on abortion issues has been fluid. Until recently, he said he supported a ban on abortions after 20 weeks — a position in line with a majority of Americans according to Gallup polling. However, he also refused to block changes to Obamacare in 2010 to provide taxpayer-funded elective abortions.

“Casey’s voting record in Congress aligns significantly with abortion-rights groups such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL. He has voted along with Planned Parenthood 75 percent of the time since 2011,” Politico reported in 2018. “And he voted with NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent of the time in 2016 and 2017.”

Supporting the WHPA, however, is a new level of pro-abortion politics.

According to an analysis by John McCormack who covers abortion legislation for the conservative National Review magazine, the WHPA creates a federal right to abortion through nine months of pregnancy in all 50 states; overrides nearly all state abortion laws, including parental-consent laws like Pennsylvania’s; weakens “conscience exemptions” to keep healthcare workers from being forced to participate in abortion procedures that violate their religious beliefs; and creates a right for non-doctors to perform abortions.

“WHPA will essentially legalize abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy and undo every state law that has protected children in the womb,” according to the group Democrats for Life America.

While most Americans say they oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, polls consistently show fewer than 20 percent of Americans support unlimited abortion up to the day of birth. However, that is exactly the position every Democrat in the Delaware Valley’s congressional delegation took when they voted to pass the WHPA last fall.

Congresswoman Madeleine Dean (D-Montgomery) tweeted after voting for the bill, “The Women’s Health Protection Act will: Codify Roe v. Wade. Create federal protection against state laws that restrict women’s health. Prohibit unwarranted restrictions that single out abortion services or providers. Beyond proud to serve in this House that passed #WHPA.”

“Like many of you, I was outraged by the leaked draft opinion of the Supreme Court regarding Roe v. Wade – and what this extreme Supreme Court may do to our country,” Dean said in an email.  “Predicting this, in September, the House passed the Women’s Health Protection Act to codify Roe v. Wade. Since then, it’s been stalled in the Senate because of the filibuster.

Rep. Madeleine Dean with abortion protesters at Independence Hall.

“It’s time the Senate carve out a filibuster exception to pass WHPA, as they’ve recently done with our debt ceiling,” she said. “Women must remain free to fulfill their right to privacy, legal and safe abortion, contraceptives, and full healthcare treatment.”

Congresswoman Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Delaware County/Philadelphia) tweeted after the SCOTUS  leak earlier this week, “Women were called hysterical for sounding the alarm about abortion rights. We were told Roe and Casey were settled law. This leaked opinion shows we were right to be terrified. The Senate must move NOW to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act.”

And Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Berks/Chester) said this on her campaign website, “A woman’s health care decisions should be made between her, her doctor, and her faith – not politicians. I am very concerned by state-level laws that inject politics into that decision, as well as the dangerous Supreme Court challenges to Roe v. Wade. That’s why I am taking action by supporting the Women’s Health Protection Act, standing against efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, and working to improve maternal health care access through the Maternal Health Quality Improvement Act.”

Abortion is also on the table in the state legislature. State Senate Republicans are putting forward a bill that would add a constitutional amendment to maintain the status quo of no right to or funding for an abortion.

“Federal courts have long held that the federal constitution does not require taxpayer funding of abortion. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in 1985 that the state constitution also does not require such taxpayer funding,” said state Sen. Judy Ward (R-Blair/Cumberland/Franklin/Fulton/Hunterdon).

“If approved, Senate Bill  956 will prevent taxpayer dollars from funding elective terminations and will preserve the authority of elected officials – not the judicial branch – to enact future abortion laws.

“To no one’s surprise, this issue has elicited consternation from abortion rights activists who wield passionate and misleading rhetoric to convince the masses that my bill will lead to widespread bans. Nothing could be further from the truth,” Ward said.

“Currently, Medicaid covers both non-elective abortions and voluntary abortions involving cases of rape or incest but still withholds funding for elective abortions,” Ward added.  “If the state constitutional amendment is approved by the voters, this won’t change. The Abortion Control Act will remain the law, as well. The language does not ban abortions, but rather ensures that abortion policy in Pennsylvania comes from the people’s elected representatives.”

Follow us on social media: Twitter: @DV_Journal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal