Ertelt: New Mexico guv bans guns that might kill people, not abortions that always do

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham

by Steven Ertelt, for

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is under fire for her attempt to use a public health emergency to ban people from carrying guns. A federal judge quickly put a halt to that today.

But Grisham is also a hypocrite when it comes to the comparison of guns and abortions.

Guns might be used to kill someone, but most all Americans who own a gun are law-abiding citizens who use guns for protection, hunting or sporting and do so lawfully and carefully. They are exercising their Second Ament right to do so.

Meanwhile, abortions kill babies. With the exception of very rare abortion survivors, abortions always successfully end the life of a little baby before birth. That abrogates their right to life – and denies them rights.

But Grisham has it backwards. She thinks taking guns away is upholding rights but banning abortions takes away rights.

On Tuesday’s broadcast of “CNN This Morning,” Grisham claimed that banning guns is different from a Republican governor doing the same thing to enact an abortion ban without the legislature approving it because “this is about protecting everyone’s rights. The Republican governor is about restricting some rights.”

Poppy Harlow asked, “Let me just ask you one final question about executive power. That’s a big thing you’re testing here, too. Are you overreaching? Let me give you a hypothetical. You’re a Democratic Governor who is doing this. What if a Republican governor of a state declares a health emergency and unilaterally outlaws abortion in that state, where the legislature has not done so by statute? Following your logic, would that also be sound?”

Grisham responded, “In this situation, honestly, I don’t think so. But that is what’s happening in this country, is that we’ve got extremists on this question and on reproductive rights.”
But the Supreme Court just confirmed the Constitution has no right to abortion. So there is no “reproductive right” to kill babies in abortions.

Grisham continued: “And the issue about the emergency order, the difference here is, I had an 11-year-old that was shot and killed with 17 rounds in a road rage. I got a call from a surgeon whose husband was killed in the exact same way in Albuquerque. Violence is growing. Every single investment and strategy, including a bold call to action, has failed. And here, this is about protecting everyone’s rights. The Republican governor is about restricting some rights. And I think we’re going to see these challenges across the country, but I’m going to stand up for the children and I’m going to stand up for public safety in Albuquerque.”

Ironically, she cares about the right to life of children after birth but destroys the right to life of children before birth. And that’s the real hypocrisy here.

If only she cared about children killed by both guns and abortions and not just by guns.

Categories: Commentary, Life&Death

6 replies »

  1. The United Nations is driving the agenda of limiting civilization access to guns in the name of human rights. The following link provides access to the United Nations Assembly, Human Rights Council, thirty-second session Agenda items 2 and 3. You can download the report by selecting your preferred language. The UN goues into great detail about this effort. I can only assume that the progressive desire to stack the supreme court is influenced by the fact that gun rights are protected by the constitution. Stacking the court will allow progressives to circumvent constitutional rights, replacing them with human rights, as defined by the United Nations.

  2. Here is a link to an equally informative article from the UN News. According to the United Nations abortion is a human right and part of reproductive health. I hope this clarifies the motivation as to why this governor supports abortion, while respecting guns.

  3. When are these politicians like New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, Gov. Ned Lamont, Gov. Kathy Hochul and Phil Scott be removed from office for violating the Constitution by signing these unconstitutional bills into law. The law is there, president has already been set by the Supreme Court

    Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)
    This was the ruling of The United States Supreme Court shortly after the “civil war” in Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) which yet stands to this day: “Neither the legislature nor any executive or judicial officer may disregard the provisions of the constitution in case of emergency…

    “Section 98 therefore, anyone who declares the suspension of constitutionally guaranteed rights (tor freely assemble, earn a living, freely worship, etc.) and or attempts to enforce such suspension within 50 independent, sovereign, continental United States of America is making war against our constitution(s) and, therefore, we the people. They violate their constitutional oath and, thus, immediately forfeit their office and authority and their proclamations may be disregarded with impunity and that means ANYONE, even the governor or President.

    Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void”.

    The Supreme Court is clear on unconstitutional laws.

    Supreme Court Decision – Norton v Shelby County 1886
    6 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
    The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The US. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
    The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The Supreme Court’s decision is as follows; “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it has never been passed”. Norton vs Shelby County 1886 – 118 US 425 p.442.

    “The very text of the 2nd Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and only declares it shall not be infringed”. – SC Justice Antonin Scalia

    “The Constitution is not a living organism, it’s a legal document, and it says what it says, and it doesn’t say what it doesn’t say” -. SC Justice Antonin Scalia

  4. Then why are our Legislators in the past and present passing laws that tell us how to heat our homes, what to cook with, what we will drive, how we will get our electricity, what is taught to our children and what to think and say? Is this in the Constitution, I think not.

    • Because since they own the voting machines and the NGOs and on and on. What is that saying “the golden rule”, he who owns the gold makes the rules.
      The other answer is quite simply is BECAUSE WE LET THEM.
      It’s called TYRANNY
      THEY , and that includes the cops, are all about the power and if you do not comply they will punish you in some way at some time.

      You can say it is not in the Constitution, but who is going to do anything about it? Who is going to prosecute this in a court of law…. NO ONE. No we are in very much need to take back this country, this state, our towns. I do not want to waste my life so I will say those who are able are in fact COWARDS and TRAITORS.
      Look at all shenanigans happening right this last year w/ various politicians. Instead of letting We the People do what is necessary they have their “police force” protect THEM, never US just them. So does that help you to understand how screwed we really are? They now are in the open and NO ONE DOES ANYTHING (except ask for permission). Not parents, not Christians, no one.

      At what point during any of these “investigations” will someone be onsite arrested for lying to our face under oath? Not gonna happen the way things are today. I guarantee that if you went to court and lied you may make it to the door, but I doubt it.

  5. Oh and remember the cops just told us to NOT take the law into our own hands even, if it cost a life….So you see where this is going.

Leave a Reply