Senator Kirsten Gillibrand compares limiting abortion rights to racism.

Democratic presidential contender Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) compared appointing judges who oppose abortion rights to supporting judicial nominees who hold racist views.

"I think there's some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable," Gillibrand said during an interview with the Des Moines Register on Tuesday

"Imagine saying that it's OK to appoint a judge who's racist, or anti-Semitic, or homophobic," she continued. "Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America ... I don't think those are political issues anymore."

"We believe in this country in the separation of church and state, and I respect the rights of every American to hold their religious beliefs true to themselves, but our country and our Constitution has always demanded that we have a separation of church and state," she said.

The comments come on the heels of a series of abortion restrictions in states like Alabama and Missouri, which led to fears among liberals that Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that established the right to an abortion, could be overturned.

The concerns have been amplified by President Trump's push to appoint more conservative judges to benches across the country, in addition to the two conservative justices confirmed to the Supreme Court during his term.

"All these efforts by President Trump, and other ultra-radical conservative judges and justices to impose their faith on Americans is contrary to our Constitution, and that's what this is," Gillibrand said.

"There is no moral equivalency when you come to racism, and I do not believe there's a moral equivalency when it comes to laws that deny women reproductive freedom," she added.

Gillibrand has long been a proponent of abortion rights, most recently taking aim at fellow 2020 Democratic contender Joe Biden for his recent reversal on the Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal funds from going toward abortions except to save the life of the woman, or if the pregnancy arises from incest or rape.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/447956-gillibrand-compares-limiting-abortion-rights-to-racism

A more apt description of denying women access to abortions would be of that of an authoritarianism.

So is appointing a judge who's philosophy might result in a limitation of abortion akin to appointing a racist judge?

Every time I think of the abortion fight in the US I think of:

racism = i'm mad that I can't get my way.

i think the point she made is should you appoint a judge who applies the law or who uses their personal (religious) views to rule, regardless of the law.

But can you separate the person/judge from the law? The right to an abortion rises from a group of individuals that found that, even though the Constitution doesn't states it explicitly, the right to privacy covers/includes the right to an abortion.

If another group of men and women found that no such right existed this would be akin to racial animus? Could it be only be do to racial animus and not a good faith, honest interpretation of the US Constitution?

Seems to me like an incendiary comparison (even while recognizing that she may not be wrong).

i agree that it was not a well chosen metaphor

So what she is saying is pretty much "I love being a dictator and there are some issues where mommy knows best no matter what"

Sure there are some "moral questions" that one-sided but Abortion is not one of them.

Not a great analogy, but I'm also not really concerned with whether the analogy is perfect. What is it republicans always say about the people they support? Sometimes things don't always come out right? They didn't mean what they said, what they actually meant was this? Etc etc etc.

I'm much more concerned with making sure abortion stays legal and we continue to empower women to take charge of their bodies and in other ways as well (such as birth control, and the ability to get into well paying jobs should they seek it out) so that we can limit the actual need for abortion in the first place.

This should be the de facto state. When you assume the position of judge, you are executing the position of office, not your personal ambitions.

People who are not capable of differentiating personal opinions from professional responsibility need to go. Like this guy:

_________________________________________________________________

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WATE) - Knox County Sheriff Tom Spangler says a deputy who recently delivered a sermon calling for police officers and government to kill homosexuals is no longer on active duty.

Fritts recently delivered two sermons condemning homosexuality at All Scripture Baptist Church in Knoxville, where he is currently pastor. In his June 2 sermon, called "Why Leviticus 20:13 Should Still Be Enforced," he calls on government and police to enforce the death penalty for homosexuals.

"God has instilled the power of civil government to send the police in 2019 out to these LGBT freaks and arrest them, and have a trial for them, and if they are convicted, they are to be put to death," Fritts said in the sermon, which is posted to YouTube. "It is a capital crime that should be carried out by our government."

_________________________________________________________________

We've got issues with our DA, as well: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/tennessee-da-faces-investigation-after-islam-gay-comments-n1016446

Yay, Tennessee. ugh.

I say no. Race is an innate characteristic that no one has control over. Abortion is a choice, and a right, which I'd say is more akin to 'speech'...or something like that.

I absolutely think anti-abortion judges are a no go but I'm not going to say it's the same flavor or wrong as a racist judge.

Not intentionally. I could be mistaken but doesn't limiting abortion disproportionately effect blacks?

Abortion was settled in the 70's. I dont know why congress keeps feeling the need to revisit it. It should be legal. If you have moral objections to it, then don't get one. End of story.

It should be, but it isn't.

But that wasn't my point.

In 1973 7 men found a right to abortion in the Constitution. Lets give them the benefit of the doubt and say they found this right not because of their personal held beliefs but because using whatever "technique" they use to interpret the Constitution they genuinely understood that there is an penumbra right to abortion in the Constitution.

If, whatever configuration of the current SCOTUS ends up being, finds in 2019 that there isn't a right to abortion in the Constitution is that sorely do to their personal beliefs or can they to, using whatever "technique" they use to interpret the Constitution, can come to a good faith conclusion that there isn't a right to abortion in the Constitution.

The point is that there seems to be generalized perception that if you find a right to abortion you may be being objective but if you don't it can only be do to your own personal beliefs.

I believe in a women's right to abort. As a matter of fact I believe in the right to abort all the way just before birth (any differentiation says you can't control a women's body in, lets say in the 1st trimester, but can control it in the 3rd trimester and I don't agree with that, it follows logically). This isn't to say that I don't grimace at the thought of a 3rd trimester abortion.

But abortion is one of those issues where I give the other side some space because if I truly believed in my heart that abortion was murder then those dismissive "if you don't believe in abortion, don't get one" retorts wouldn't be sufficient to deter me.

Their is no right to murder. So who cares if a majority of the people voted for it? Or if a court said it was legal? Or even if there was a Constitutional amendment that explicitly stated that abortion is a right that should be protected? If I believed that abortion was murder I would fight with every fiber of my being till the end of time even if I was the only person in the world that thought it was wrong.

And I don't think any other topic really compares to the abortion debate, I think it is unique. Perhaps that's my fault.

@n64dd: yep. It use to be clear what racism is. Now some people bend it to what ever they can.

It probably disproportionately affects minorities but that doesn't necessarily makes it racist (to say the least). Otherwise any governmental action one takes regarding a law, a program etc. that disproportionately affects groups vis-a-vis their % as whole in the population could be misconstrued as racist.

There is a vast difference in the viability of the baby in the third trimester.

What you're describing sounds like religious zealotry. Someone knows in their heart they are right, the other side is wrong, they don't care about any other arguments. They aren't worth debating at all.

There is. It doesn't changes the fact that you are trying to control a woman's body if you say she can't abort in the third trimester.

Is it? Are all religious individuals that believe that abortion is murder zealots? What is the difference? Lets say I talk to what appears to be a perfectly normal, open minded religious person and said person sits down with me and hears me out lay out the medical, legal, and philosophical case of why abortion isn't murder and at the end of it says: "I hear what you are saying, I appreciate and thank you for taking the time to explain your case to me but I still believe that abortion is murder". Is that person a religious zealot?

I'm looking at it through a more holistic view in the end, at least that's what I think. If someone is still willing to listen but ignore arguments and support a position which can lead to horrific circumstances, I'd say that counts as Zealotry. Let me explain.

These people want to define abortion as murder. This means that people performing abortions are murderers and people getting abortions are, at the very minimum, culpable in murder. Their demeanor discussing the subject is less relevant to me than the legal consequences of supporting such a position. Being cordial about supporting a potential law that could invoke the death penalty for providing abortions is what I would consider religious zealotry. It's lipstick on a pig to me.

Suppose I switch this around and replace abortion with slavery. Would a person who pronounces their support of slavery, no matter their prose, be considered a racist? They may disagree with us as to people being viewed as property and available for purchase, but simply saying 'I disagree with you', doesn't erase the support for an abominable law, which if enacted, leads to injustice.