Justice is served; Schumer is not

Abortion is a topic that ignites passions and incites rhetoric. Despite what some have optimistically stated, the common ground between pro-choice and pro-life factions is strewn with land mines.

But not all rhetoric is the same. This week, as lawyers were arguing the merits of a controversial anti-abortion law before the Supreme Court, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N .Y., the Senate minority leader, was outside at an abortion rights rally. This is what he had to say:

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you.”

“Gorsuch” and “Kavanaugh” are, of course, the two junior justices appointed by President Trump. Both of them are believed to be in favor of the Louisiana law in question, which would require doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Opponents of the law argue that it’s not necessary because abortion is – according to them – a safe procedure. They believe that the Louisiana law is designed to prevent a woman’s access to her constitutional right to choose. They point out that it is virtually identical to a Texas law that was recently struck down by the court as impermissibly limiting a woman’s options.

Pro-life activists disagree, and warn that it is precisely this lack of oversight that leads to situations like Kermit Gosnell, the notorious West Philadelphia abortionist who was convicted of gruesome crimes against babies who had already been delivered.

Given the high stakes, it is not uncommon to hear intense arguments about both the procedure and the laws that regulate it. I recently spoke to a group of female lawyers who did not agree with my pro-life stance, and while they listened politely (for the most part) as I explained how I had arrived at my belief that Roe v. Wade should be overturned, some made a point to remind me that abortionists have been killed while performing a legal procedure. Fair enough.

But what Chuck Schumer did on Wednesday morning was unconscionable. More importantly, it was dangerous. The second most powerful senator in the chamber called out two Supreme Court justices and essentially threatened them that if they performed their constitutional duty, they would “pay the price.” Those words are unambiguous, despite later attempts to backtrack. Schumer’s spokesperson Justin Goodman said the senator meant “that the justices will unleash major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision.” Cue the eyeroll.

The fact that the senator felt it necessary to issue that followup statement shows just how much he was aware that his initial comments were damning. To tell a Supreme Court Justice that he will “pay a price” is eerily reminiscent of the threats that doctors who performed abortions received from radical anti-abortionists shortly before they were killed, or their clinics were bombed. While I am not saying that Schumer was threatening actual violence against the justices, the mere fact that he would make that type of comment in this highly charged climate is completely irresponsible.

These days, we have stopped measuring our words. Social media has made it much easier for us to say the first thing that comes to mind. We operate behind an invisible screen, speaking to an invisible audience, and we dispense with the filters that, once upon a time, helped us engage in equally passionate but much more respectful discourse. I have been guilty of that myself, on numerous occasions.

But I am not the second most powerful senator in Washington, D.C., and my voice does not carry to the steps of the Supreme Court. Regardless of his later attempt at triage, Schumer’s admonition that the Trump-appointed justices would “pay a price” mirrors the same type of rhetoric that liberals (including Schumer himself) have criticized when employed by the president.

So offensive were those comments that Chief Justice Roberts came out and publicly reprimanded Schumer, noting “statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.”

This is reminiscent of the time that the chief justice admonished Trump when he criticized the court.

The First Amendment protects our right to protest. It does not protect a senator’s right to make threats.