Accuracy in Media

David French writes at National Review that the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade pro-abortion decision was morally and intellectually bankrupt, and has resulted in millions of children being “poisoned, stabbed, and dismembered.” So what will Judge Neil Gorsuch do to end this carnage?

Gorsuch has not ruled on an abortion case, but told the Senate during his confirmation hearings that the Court ruling is “the law of the land,” and “I accept the law of the land.”

My column, “Is Gorsuch a ‘Stealth Nominee?,” stands virtually alone in raising questions about these troubling statements from a conservative pro-life perspective. The conservative media are not raising the questions that they should about this nominee. They seem to have accepted the notion that President Donald Trump has nominated a true conservative, backed by the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation, and that nothing more needs to be done or said, except to rubber-stamp his nomination.

He has said some things about the value of human life and religious freedom, but is it too much to ask and demand an answer to a simple question: Do you regard innocent unborn human beings as life worthy of life?

As a journalist and media critic, I am taught to demand answers. The issue is not ideology or perspective, but information. We knew the Left would reject any nominee from a Republican president. But the supposedly pro-life and conservative side seems content with his controversial comments in favor of “the law” and “precedent.” The status quo means more abortions.

From 1973 through 2011, according to available statistics, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S. At that rate, the U.S. is fast approaching the grotesque record of Mao Tse-tung, the communist Chinese leader who is still regarded as history’s greatest mass murderer. In America, of course, the abortions are done in the name of women’s rights and the “right to choose.”

“Our democracy has been corrupted to protect abortion charnel houses even from the most basic commonsense regulations,” notes David French. “The precedents and reasoning that created the abortion right have translated into a belief in a ‘living constitution’ that is so deeply embedded into the philosophy of the Left that it now believes that the Court can and should simply decide the correct outcome of any given case and then ‘find’ the right and reasoning in some combination of philosophy, law, precedent, and (sometimes) even selectively chosen foreign legal decisions.”

But has this reasoning been “imbedded” in Judge Gorsuch, a product of some of the same elite liberal academic institutions that produced Barack Obama, his nominees, and the “Living Constitution” nonsense?

Millions more unborn children have died since another Republican nominee, David Souter, was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Republicans had assured conservatives that Souter was a reliable conservative who would rule correctly on abortion and other issues. They were wrong, and we had reason to know they were wrong.

Jeremy Rabkin wrote a Weekly Standard article back in 1995 about how “the entire Washington conservative establishment” was fooled by Souter and his Republican handlers. He said Souter was “supported by conservative groups and unchallenged by conservatives inside the Bush White House.”

The late Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus saw through Souter and opposed his nomination. Rabkin sort of admitted this, saying, “Only one conservative organization, Howard Phillips’s Conservative Caucus, raised its voice in opposition to Souter at the time of the confirmation proceedings (and then solely on the basis of doubts about Souter’s personal views on abortion).” Actually, Phillips opposed Souter across the board, saying, “The overreaching moral issue in the political life of the United States in the last third of the 20th Century is, in my opinion, the question of abortion…If Judge Souter is confirmed as a Justice of the Supreme Court, he will, in all likelihood, be given the opportunity to address not only the issue of Roe v. Wade, but broader issues involving the sanctity of innocent human life.”

Rabkin wrote that Souter became “one of the staunchest liberals on the court—a more reliable champion of liberal causes than Clinton appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.”

Phillips came to understand the risks associated with Souter by analyzing his record, as a member of the board of trustees of Concord Hospital in New Hampshire, when “he participated in a unanimous decision that abortions be performed at that hospital.” Phillips concluded, “Advocacy of, or even acquiescence in, such a decision is morally distinguishable from the judicial conclusion, profoundly incorrect, in my view, that women have a constitutional right to destroy their unborn children.”

The lobbying on behalf of Gorsuch has been similar to what we saw on behalf of Souter.

We are told that Gorsuch is like the late Justice Antonin Scalia. But Scalia was a staunch Catholic who attended a very conservative Catholic church. Gorsuch was raised Roman Catholic but left the church and became a member of the ultra-liberal St. John’s Episcopal Church in Boulder, Colorado, which has come to be known as Jeremiah Wright-lite, a reference to Obama’s longtime radical pastor.

Christian scholar Gary DeMar writes that this church is associated with a denomination, the Episcopal Church in the United States of America, that is liberal on many social issues, including abortion, same-sex marriage and “climate change.”

Its 48-page “Policy for Action” document  calls for “affirming reproductive choice,” which is code for abortion; more foreign aid; national health care; homosexual rights; support for the “Earth Charter;” and the licensing of purchasers of handguns.

On another hot button issue, the Episcopal Church believes in a “New Sanctuary Movement,” in order to shield illegal aliens from law enforcement; amnesty for illegals; and cheap college tuition for the so-called DREAMers.

Journalist Julia Duin, who previously wrote for The Washington Times, has brought up the issue of Gorsuch’s church membership, noting, “The Episcopal Church, for anyone who’s not been following religion trends in recent decades, has been careening to the theological and cultural left for years and its membership statistics show it.” She says the fact that the judge and his family have remained at St. John’s, rather than going to a more conservative church in the area, “says something,” and adds, “His church choice just may hint at certain leanings.”

It’s interesting that the Episcopal Church has a government relations website with a photo of the Supreme Court on it. Perhaps the church knows something about Gorsuch and his “leanings.”

But the American people don’t know, and apparently have no right to know.

Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.


  • Lyntill

    Two columns in a row claiming that Gorsuch is a bad choice for SC candidate on the week that he will be confirmed is ridiculous. If you felt this way why didn’t you say something when it might have made a difference?

    Of course your first column stands alone, except for your second column. They’re way too late.

    David French, *NeverTrumper who didn’t have the guts to run for president is now your first source?

    Puhleez. Stop wasting my time. You can do better than this.

  • efred1

    What is “The Law of The Land”? The Constitution, which supercedes all laws and even Supreme Court Rulings; if a previous ruling is against the spirit and intent of the Constitution, such as the Dred Scott Case, it is the Justice’s duty to overrule it when possible, and it’s possible and probable, that Gorsuch is such a person who could possibly right a grievous earlier wrong, and Gorsuch’s statement, while sounding politically like he’ll cowtow to Roe v Wade, it’s more enigmatic like that. It’s more like “25) “Well then,” he said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.” (Luke 20:25) That statement has been the basis for two opposing arguments for over 2000 years now. All we can do is wait and see. Living in fear that we’re being tricked by Trump or some such thing is illogical; so far, his decisions are paragons of conservativism, previously unknown from any President, including Reagan. Trump has been showing himself to being a master tactician, playing at a level that liberals, and even conservatives have not seen.

    Gorsuch has previously made a reputation of being a strict Constitutionalist and a fair and evenhanded justice, who’s also not stupid; our only way to see how he’ll judge is to find out his religious background and how firm his foundation is; that will tell us more than anything else.

  • MonadnockMan

    The problem I have is many of the individuals sitting judgement during the vetting process of this most superior Jurist do not even have a scintilla of qualifications to be in the same room at the time. A good many operate on the premise that it is my way or the highway since November 2008, hence the issues today.

  • thesafesurfer

    Roe v Wade is the law of the land. The number of ideologues blind to that fact never ceases to amaze. You can regulate abortion practices at the state level. You can go after tax payer funding of Planned Parenthood and the like.
    It won’t change the fact that Roe v Wade is the law of the land.

  • Richard Arena

    In answer to questions about how he might opine on controversial matters such as Roe v Wade, John Roberts spoke about his adherence to stare decis

  • siddrain

    It amazes me that the Democrats confirmed Gorsuch when he was their candidate for Federal Judge but now he’s not acceptable. It just shows that the Democrats only care about themselves and not the American People.

  • Tannim

    “…is it too much to ask and demand an answer to a simple question: Do you regard innocent unborn human beings as life worthy of life?”

    When dealing with a nominee for SCOTUS who may have to legally answer that question, YES, it is too much to ask. WHY? Because that immediately places him in a position of prejudging a case before it is heard, and that is completely unethical for any judge.

    You may be a so-called journalist, but you clearly weren’t paying attention during the hearings when Gorsuch stated exactly that.

    And applying an abortion litmus test on either side of the issue is just as bad as the other side applying it. Gorsuch is eminently qualified on merits and should be confirmed on the same, not politics.

    You should know better.

  • Tannim

    Oh, why Roberts went through that legal gymnastics, which were so absurd they failed the common sense test, was rather simple:

    He was blackmailed by the IRS.

  • Tannim

    Actually, it isn’t. It was superseded by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

  • Chilibreath

    Extremism is, by its very nature, a dangerous mindset in politics, and we see extremism by both the fringe left and the fringe right. Generally speaking religion in politics can be extreme : i.e., Kneel before allah or be killed (Muslim)… Believe in god or burn in hell for all eternity (Christian), and this is why religion and politics should be separate and apart. If the West can’t separate their religion from politics then they are no different than the radicals in the East who behead those who refuse to acknowledge allah as the one true god. The use of a lower case “g” in the word god is intentional… and it is no accident that the “a” in allah is also not capitalized.

  • thesafesurfer

    You don’t understand Roe v. Wade.
    Roe v. Wade didn’t establish a right to abortion it established an individuals right to privacy in their own body.
    Abortion will get regulated by law, but the Stare Decis of Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.

    The operative statement in the decision-….”the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.”

  • Carol

    It seems to me that if in the end as we all knew from the start that it was going to take a rule change and the vote of all Republicans only, that we should have picked a TRUE Catholic and a true conservative to replace Scalia. not this sheep in wool clothing. I believe the GOP has failed us once again. Judge Gorsuch’s church is dangerous and was a clear warning sign. This is not good. It’s interesting that no one asked him about this church, especially the Democrats. They are sly foxes, they knew. And now when they win in four years they be able to install the most liberal ever nominees. They have tricked us and won again.