{"id":96824,"date":"2016-06-28T17:31:50","date_gmt":"2016-06-28T21:31:50","guid":{"rendered":"\/news\/?p=96824"},"modified":"2016-08-31T17:36:51","modified_gmt":"2016-08-31T21:36:51","slug":"pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/","title":{"rendered":"Pro-abortion analyst fails to discredit Clarence Thomas’s Texas dissent"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

If you hoped pro-abortion legal analysts\u2019 reaction to the Supreme Court\u2019s Texas abortion ruling<\/a> might at least be a cut above the reactions of garden-variety pro-abortion bloggers<\/a>, think again.<\/p>\n

At LawNewz, Elura Nanos presumes<\/a> to dismantle three \u201creally, really lame\u201d arguments Justice Clarence Thomas put forth in his blistering dissent<\/a> from the majority\u2019s judicial malfeasance. However, I don\u2019t think anyone will be shocked to learn that the only lame arguments are hers.<\/p>\n

Before presuming to lecture one of the greatest living legal minds in the country, Nanos introduces the subject as follows:<\/p>\n

\n

Abortion law is an innately complex topic, because the nature of pregnancy is unique in its evolving relationship between an individual woman and another potential human being.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Not really. Abortion precedent<\/em> may be complex, but that\u2019s only because the Supreme Court started us on a such a convoluted course<\/a> by deciding it was a constitutional right based on something other than the straightforward text of the Constitution. Properly understood<\/em>, the Constitution\u2019s answer to abortion couldn’t be simpler<\/a>: all human beings (which the preborn are\u2014actual, not potential<\/a>) have the right not to be killed.<\/p>\n

The constitutionality of medical regulations is straightforward, too\u2014according to<\/a> James Madison, the federal government\u2019s powers \u201care few and defined,\u201d while \u201cthose which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.\u201d So Texas should generally be free to make whatever laws are not forbidden by something the Constitution specifically says.<\/p>\n

\n

THOMAS: \u201cToday the Court strikes down two state statutory provisions in all of their applications, at the behest of abortion clinics and doctors.\u201d<\/p>\n

NANOS: Really? The Supreme Court is operating \u201cat the behest\u201d of abortion clinics and doctors? That\u2019s kind of obnoxious. The millions of liberty-loving Americans who fight for abortion rights do so as advocates for women, not for clinics. The suggestion that our highest Court doesn\u2019t actually care about reproductive rights or Constitutional precedent, but rather, is the puppet of abortion clinics is absurd and offensive.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The only thing absurd and offensive here is that this is exactly what happened. The suit was brought by Whole Woman\u2019s Health, an abortion chain, and the court ruled in their favor, despite WWH\u2019s nearly ten-year record<\/a> of lawbreaking, substandard health and safety conditions, and egregious negligence — a\u00a0record that these \u201cadvocates for women\u201d decided was good enough for women<\/a>. So with neither legal merit nor women\u2019s health justifying the decision, what other conclusion is left than Thomas\u2019s?<\/p>\n

\n

THOMAS: \u201cTo begin, the very existence of this suit is a jurisprudential oddity. Ordinarily, plaintiffs cannot file suits to vindicate the constitutional rights of others. But the Court employs a different approach to rights that it favors.\u201d<\/p>\n

NANOS: You have to respect how Justice Thomas is unapologetic in his hypocrisy. The justice is certainly right that lawsuits require that the plaintiff have proper standing to sue. But questions about abortion have always required a \u201cdifferent approach\u201d because pregnancy is inherently different from other subjects. More importantly, the entirety of pro-life rhetoric is founded on the idea of third-party assertion of rights. Every time state governments reach their legislative hands into women\u2019s uteruses, they justify the intrusion with their obligation to protect the unborn; no clearer assertion of the rights of \u201cothers\u201d has ever been made.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That\u2019s a lot of certainty for what amounts to \u201cI don\u2019t know what I\u2019m talking about.\u201d Standing to bring a suit in a particular case (which can vary wildly depending on the specifics) and constitutional authority to legislate something (see above) are two entirely different things. I highly doubt Thomas has ever argued that standing is irrelevant for pro-lifers filing lawsuits against pro-abortion laws\u2026 just as I doubt there are many law students who make it past their first year confusing such unrelated concepts under the umbrella of \u201casserting rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"levatino-ad-LAN\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

Allowing women to get abortions only in some absurdly narrow set of equals outlawing abortion. If Texas had legislated in a manner that would close half its gun stores, the Court would likely have found a similar undue burden on the Second Amendment.
\n<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

We\u2019ll get to the \u201cundue burden\u201d test in a moment, but here let\u2019s just note the obvious difference Nanos overlooks: the Second Amendment is an actual part of the Constitution<\/a> expressly guaranteeing the \u201cright of the people to keep and bear arms,\u201d whereas abortion \u201crights\u201d are projected into the Constitution based on imaginary \u201cpenumbras<\/a>.\u201d Even if the undue burden test was legitimate, the constitutional right being burdened still has to, y\u2019know, exist.<\/p>\n

\n

THOMAS: \u201cThe majority applies the undue-burden standard in a way that will surely mystify lower courts for years to come.\u201d<\/p>\n

NANOS: Maybe I\u2019m some sort of legal genius, but I\u2019m nowhere near \u201cmystified\u201d right now. I\u2019m not even a little bit confused. The Texas law made it super tough for Texan women to get abortions, mainly in that it closed most Texan abortion clinics. Forcing someone seeking a medical procedure to jump through costly and difficult hoops is pretty clearly an \u201cundue burden\u201d \u2013 whether we\u2019re using the plain meaning or the legal meaning of those words.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u201cSome sort of legal genius\u201d who missed two glaring problems with the majority decision. First, the \u201cundue burden\u201d test is a judicial invention<\/a> rather than a real standard to be found in the Constitution\u2019s text. \u201cUndue burden\u201d doesn\u2019t have<\/a> a precise legal meaning that can be impartially applied, and it flips the burden of proof<\/a> from the feds having to prove that their intervention serves a \u201ccompelling interest\u201d not otherwise achievable (which is already a departure from Madison\u2019s original explanation of enumerated powers), to the states having to prove they\u2019re playing nice with the judiciary\u2019s favored legal fictions such as Roe v. Wade<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Second, Thomas isn\u2019t making up his own standard. He\u2019s directly calling out this ruling as a repudiation of SCOTUS\u2019s own precedent<\/a> of upholding various abortion regulations based on the \u201clegitimate interest\u201d Planned Parenthood v. Casey<\/a><\/em> recognized in both \u201cmaternal health and in unborn life.\u201d<\/p>\n

In fact, his point is that the majority \u201cradically rewrites the undue-burden test\u201d from Casey\u2019s<\/em> own baseline:<\/p>\n

\n

First, today\u2019s decision requires courts to \u201cconsider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits those laws confer.\u201d Second, today\u2019s opinion tells the courts that, when the law\u2019s justifications are medically uncertain, they need not defer to the legislature, and must instead assess medical justifications for abortion restrictions by scrutinizing the record themselves. Finally, even if a law imposes no \u201csubstantial obstacle\u201d to women\u2019s access to abortions, the law now must have more than a \u201creasonabl[e] relat[ion] to . . . a legitimate state interest.\u201d These precepts are nowhere to be found in Casey or its successors, and transform the undue-burden test to something much more akin to strict scrutiny.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Nanos says she\u2019s \u201cnot quite sure what Justice Thomas finds confusing about that.\u201d Well, reading the justice\u2019s extensive elaboration of his above three points probably would have cleared that up.<\/p>\n

Try as they might, abortion apologists cannot change the reality that yesterday\u2019s ruling was rank political manipulation masquerading as law. Abortion-on-demand began in this country with judicial malpractice, and judicial malpractice continues to keep it alive.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you hoped pro-abortion legal analysts\u2019 reaction to the Supreme Court\u2019s Texas abortion ruling might at least be a cut above the reactions of garden-variety pro-abortion bloggers, think again. At LawNewz, Elura Nanos presumes to dismantle three \u201creally, really lame\u201d arguments Justice Clarence Thomas put forth in his blistering dissent from the majority\u2019s judicial malfeasance. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":54,"featured_media":96825,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false},"categories":[3],"tags":[3795,1094,253,9294,2713,259,9293,197,82,3800,7741],"yoast_head":"\nPro-abortion analyst fails to discredit Clarence Thomas's Texas dissent<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Try as they might, abortion apologists cannot change the reality that SCOTUS\u2019s Texas ruling was rank political manipulation masquerading as law.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pro-abortion analyst fails to discredit Clarence Thomas's Texas dissent\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Try as they might, abortion apologists cannot change the reality that SCOTUS\u2019s Texas ruling was rank political manipulation masquerading as law.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Live Action News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-06-28T21:31:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-31T21:36:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Supreme-Court-Justice-Clarence-Thomas.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1641\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Calvin Freiburger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@liveaction\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@liveaction\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Calvin Freiburger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Calvin Freiburger\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/6eb2bf94c8064b71953ba137bf413c4d\"},\"headline\":\"Pro-abortion analyst fails to discredit Clarence Thomas’s Texas dissent\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-06-28T21:31:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-31T21:36:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/\"},\"wordCount\":1233,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"abortion clinic regulations\",\"Clarence Thomas\",\"Constitution\",\"Elura Nanos\",\"HB 2\",\"judicial activism\",\"LawNewz\",\"Supreme Court\",\"Texas\",\"undue burden\",\"Whole Women's Health vs Hellerstedt\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Opinion\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/\",\"name\":\"Pro-abortion analyst fails to discredit Clarence Thomas's Texas dissent\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2016-06-28T21:31:50+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-31T21:36:51+00:00\",\"description\":\"Try as they might, abortion apologists cannot change the reality that SCOTUS\u2019s Texas ruling was rank political manipulation masquerading as law.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pro-abortion analyst fails to discredit Clarence Thomas’s Texas dissent\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/\",\"name\":\"Live Action News\",\"description\":\"Covering Human Rights, Abortion, & Pro-Life Issues\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Live Action\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png\",\"width\":701,\"height\":710,\"caption\":\"Live Action\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/liveaction\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/liveactionorg\/\",\"https:\/\/www.pinterest.com\/LiveActionFilms\/\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/LiveActionFilms\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/6eb2bf94c8064b71953ba137bf413c4d\",\"name\":\"Calvin Freiburger\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e27533b6967b0c47cce543ba67e2a7a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e27533b6967b0c47cce543ba67e2a7a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Calvin Freiburger\"},\"description\":\"Calvin Freiburger is a Wisconsin-based conservative writer and 2011 Hillsdale College graduate, dedicated to the principles of the American Founding\u2014individual liberty, limited government, public virtue, free markets, and strong defense\u2014though he believes no issue is more important than defending the unalienable rights of society\u2019s most vulnerable members. Calvin is an editor and administrator for TheFederalistPapers.org, and his work has appeared on NewsRealBlog.com, PatriotUpdate.com, LifeNews.com, LifeSiteNews.com, RightWisconsin.com, AmericanThinker.com, Stream.org, AmericanClarion.org, and more. Please check out his official website, ConservativeStandards.com. Follow @CalFreiburger\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/author\/calvin-freiburger\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pro-abortion analyst fails to discredit Clarence Thomas's Texas dissent","description":"Try as they might, abortion apologists cannot change the reality that SCOTUS\u2019s Texas ruling was rank political manipulation masquerading as law.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pro-abortion analyst fails to discredit Clarence Thomas's Texas dissent","og_description":"Try as they might, abortion apologists cannot change the reality that SCOTUS\u2019s Texas ruling was rank political manipulation masquerading as law.","og_url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/","og_site_name":"Live Action News","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction","article_published_time":"2016-06-28T21:31:50+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-31T21:36:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2400,"height":1641,"url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Supreme-Court-Justice-Clarence-Thomas.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Calvin Freiburger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@liveaction","twitter_site":"@liveaction","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Calvin Freiburger","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/"},"author":{"name":"Calvin Freiburger","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/6eb2bf94c8064b71953ba137bf413c4d"},"headline":"Pro-abortion analyst fails to discredit Clarence Thomas’s Texas dissent","datePublished":"2016-06-28T21:31:50+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-31T21:36:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/"},"wordCount":1233,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization"},"keywords":["abortion clinic regulations","Clarence Thomas","Constitution","Elura Nanos","HB 2","judicial activism","LawNewz","Supreme Court","Texas","undue burden","Whole Women's Health vs Hellerstedt"],"articleSection":["Opinion"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/","name":"Pro-abortion analyst fails to discredit Clarence Thomas's Texas dissent","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website"},"datePublished":"2016-06-28T21:31:50+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-31T21:36:51+00:00","description":"Try as they might, abortion apologists cannot change the reality that SCOTUS\u2019s Texas ruling was rank political manipulation masquerading as law.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/pro-abortion-analyst-utterly-fails-to-discredit-clarence-thomass-texas-dissent\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pro-abortion analyst fails to discredit Clarence Thomas’s Texas dissent"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#website","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/","name":"Live Action News","description":"Covering Human Rights, Abortion, & Pro-Life Issues","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#organization","name":"Live Action","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/Live-Action-Logo-Black.png","width":701,"height":710,"caption":"Live Action"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/liveaction","https:\/\/twitter.com\/liveaction","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/liveactionorg\/","https:\/\/www.pinterest.com\/LiveActionFilms\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/user\/LiveActionFilms"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/6eb2bf94c8064b71953ba137bf413c4d","name":"Calvin Freiburger","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e27533b6967b0c47cce543ba67e2a7a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e27533b6967b0c47cce543ba67e2a7a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Calvin Freiburger"},"description":"Calvin Freiburger is a Wisconsin-based conservative writer and 2011 Hillsdale College graduate, dedicated to the principles of the American Founding\u2014individual liberty, limited government, public virtue, free markets, and strong defense\u2014though he believes no issue is more important than defending the unalienable rights of society\u2019s most vulnerable members. Calvin is an editor and administrator for TheFederalistPapers.org, and his work has appeared on NewsRealBlog.com, PatriotUpdate.com, LifeNews.com, LifeSiteNews.com, RightWisconsin.com, AmericanThinker.com, Stream.org, AmericanClarion.org, and more. Please check out his official website, ConservativeStandards.com. Follow @CalFreiburger","url":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/author\/calvin-freiburger\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96824"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/54"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=96824"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96824\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":96875,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/96824\/revisions\/96875"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/96825"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=96824"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=96824"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=96824"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}