When Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., threatened U.S. Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh—"You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward . . . " at a rally outside the Supreme Court on March 4, he was roundly criticized — by Chief Justice John Roberts, by Republicans, and even some liberal media.
I found another aspect of his remarks particularly annoying.
In his "apology," made on the U.S. Senate floor the next day, he said he should not have used the words that he did ("I’m from Brooklyn. We speak in strong language") — it’s just that he feels "so deeply the anger of women all across America."
And he repeated that: "American women are angry." This kind of convenient-for-his-agenda statement is false and, I might add, sexist.
Schumer can’t claim "American women" are … anything. They are not a monolith.
Does he ever claim "American men" are for or against something?
No, because men are recognized as individuals. If women are only a special interest group — where is the equality? And, as he well knows, "American women" are especially divided on the abortion issue.
A recent Gallup poll found that 51 percent of American women consider themselves "pro-life." I’d say quite a few them are angry — at Schumer.
Another recent poll, the NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, has different results: 33 percent of women are pro-life, 60 percent pro-choice; however, in this poll’s subsequent questions, it becomes clear that of the "pro-choice" majority, very few support unrestricted abortion. For example, to the question: "Do you agree abortion should be available to a women any time she wants one during her entire pregnancy," only 17 percent of women agree.
And only 28 percent of pro-choice choice women agree.
Schumer’s threats were part of his rallying speech on the first day of oral arguments in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo. At issue is not the "right" to abortion, but the ability of the state of Louisiana to require that abortion clinics have admitting privileges at nearby (within 30 miles) hospitals.
Is this the state’s right to enforce, or does it pose an "undue" burden on women’s "constitutional right" to abortion? Hospital admitting privileges were an issue as well in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, where the Court ruled that in the state of Texas, such requirements did not confer "medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access" that it would impose.
However, since then, of course, Justice Anthony Kennedy retired (in 2018) and Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have joined the Court—thus Schumer’s threats.
As Schumer claims to speak for "American women" on the matter of hospital privileges, he might want to look at this polling question: "Please tell me if you support or oppose a law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have hospital admitting privileges."
Results: 66 percent of all women do, meaning that about half of those are women who identify as pro-choice. 64 percent of all men and women polled support such a law. Indeed, it is an example of common ground, as it has to do with the health and safety of women, something both sides claim to care about .
It is not unreasonable — as this study shows — to require all outpatient clinics to have more accountability; lives depend on it. The nonprofit Leapfrog Group surveyed outpatient surgery centers and found that “more than 1 in 3 outpatient surgery centers employ doctors who are not board certified” and nearly "30% of providers who provide anesthesia at doctor-owned centers are not board certified."
Admitting privileges would mean that, if a patient needs to go to the hospital because of abortion complications, she might have follow-through care with the doctor who performed the procedure. It also means that doctors and clinics who put patients at risk would be exposed.
Senator Schumer’s rhetoric grossly misrepresents American women and where they stand on abortion and related issues. Like the Democratic party of 2020, Schumer represents a radical minority supported by the huge abortion industry, which puts profit over safety.
Maria McFadden Maffucci is the editor in chief of the Human Life Review (www.humanlifereview.com), a quarterly journal devoted to the defense of human life, founded in 1974 by her father, James P. McFadden, Associate Publisher of National Review. She is President of the Human Life Foundation, based in midtown Manhattan, which publishes the Review and supports pregnancy resource centers. Mrs. Maffucci’s articles and editorials have appeared in the Human Life Review, First Things, National Review Online, National Review, Verily. A Holy Cross graduate with a BA in Philosophy, she is married to Robert E. Maffucci, and the mother of three children. Her interests include exploring opportunities for individuals with special needs. To read more of her reports — Click Here Now.