Stefanowski, Lamont Weigh In On Supreme Court Decision To Overturn Roe V. Wade

Statements from candidates for governor, Republican Bob Stefanowski and Democrat Ned Lamont.

From Stefanowski:

Bob Stefanowski, candidate for Governor of Connecticut, responds to the decision by the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling has absolutely no impact on Connecticut residents. I will continue to support Connecticut’s state law, which has codified a woman’s right to choose, with an appropriate ban on late-term abortion. Governor Lamont takes the extreme position that parents don’t even have a right to know their daughter is considering an abortion, while I support mandatory notification to parents for girls under sixteen.”

From Lamont

Governor Ned Lamont today released the following statement on the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturns the landmark protections on reproductive rights that were prescribed nearly 50 years ago in Roe v. Wade:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision drastically oversteps the constitutional right for Americans to make their own reproductive healthcare decisions without government interference. Decisions on reproductive healthcare should only be made between a patient and their doctor without the interference of politicians. This ruling will not only result in a patchwork of unequal laws among the states, but more importantly it will result in dangerous and life-threatening situations similar to what this country witnessed countless times in the era prior to the landmark Roe case in which women died or were left severely injured because they could not access the medical care that they should have every right to access on their own.

“I am grateful to live in Connecticut, where our laws make it clear that women have a right to choose. As long as I am governor, reproductive rights will be protected in Connecticut and I will do everything in my power to block laws from being passed that restrict those rights.”

In May,Governor Lamont signed Public Act 22-19, a first-in-the-nation law that protects medical providers and patients seeking abortion care in Connecticut who may be traveling from other states that have outlawed abortion. Additionally, the law expands abortion access in Connecticut by expanding the type of practitioners eligible to perform certain abortion-related care.



  1. Without getting into the complexity of the issue at hand or the legal jargon behind it. From my understanding, Roe vs Wade granted the constitutional right for women to have an abortion based on the due process clause in the 14th amendment of deprivation of “life, liberty, or property. Someone really has to define who’s “life”, “liberty”, and “property” needs to be protected.

    That being said, being Catholic I have to be for the right to an abortion. It may not be the conscionable choice for some. But to hold the view of life begins at conception and the sanctity of life. You would be holding the view God/Jesus’ existence and sacrifice were morally wrong. For Jesus was preordained to be conceived to die (aborted) JS

    P.S Having a choice doesn’t mean you have to procrastinate. 8 weeks is plenty of time to make such a choice before a fully human being develops. A 9 months choice (abortion) killing a life is barbarism. So please Ds don’t stand too high on that moral righteous pedestal with some of your laws in the name of protection of women’s rights I align with Dave, you figure that shit out for yourself.

  2. Not getting into the barbarism laws of the left on the abortion issue, I mean 9 months people? This is the looney right. Take this lady with the Pro-Life Council of Connecticut.

    On one hand, she claims they will stand for the sanctity of life of the unborn until natural death. Notwithstanding, the fact goes against Jesus’ life, death, and purpose. Not sure what God she’s thanking, but it’s not Jesus. She threw his life, sacrifice, and God statue under the bus. 🙂

    She claims that her “Christian” organizations don’t believe, that under any circumstances, someone should have an abortion, which includes rape, incest, or deformative development. It wasn’t always that way. There was a time when they has some exceptions like rape and incest. But that view had to change because it when against the sanctity of life stance.

    Keeping with the Bible theme. Similar to the story of Sodom where Abraham ( pun intended Marcus 🙂 jewed God down to finding ten righteous people from fifty to save the Sodom. If they concede to just one rape or incest abortion the Santicy on life is worthless. So in order to continue that stance, a rape victim must keep the assailant’s child without regard for her or her choice to do so.
    (footnote: he didn’t and the God of Abraham destroyed Sodom and everyone in ti) .

    Ironically though, this is the same side that fights for the constitutional right to bear arms for self-protection. Meaning you can’t kill someone who is attacking you. But if that attacker raped someone, they must let his seeds germinate in her and bear his child.

    However, I will give her a point that there could be no direct constitutional right to have an abortion in the Consitution. Although, it can be argued that any laws prohibiting access to abortion in a violation of the first amendment. Since the fetus is not an Us citizen with constitutional rights and abortion laws are grounded in the sanctity of life which is a Christian religious value (as ironic as it sounds) It would violate the constitution’s first amendment if any law prohibited someone from seeking an abortion. Any law banning or prohibiting abortion can be argued on the grounds of the 1st amendment as unconstitutional.

    I believe a next step will be for a court case to review whether there is a constitutional right for life of a unborn fetus (Considering that states like CT may have legislation to allow for abortions, there could then be a 14th Amendment Constitutional issue.).
    Also, since the abortion promoters like to talk about rights and choices, then it is also time to talk about responsibilities, consequences and morals.
    God is good 🙏

    1. The next step for the court to review whether a fetus has constitutional rights would also be the next step in the case that making laws banning abortion is in violation of the 1st amendment. The premise of Sanctity of life is grounded in Christian religious values, the reasoning for banning abortion. If you don’t hear about the ACLU or Plan Peranthood filing lawsuits in states that outright ban abortion on the grounds that banning abortion law is in violation of the 1st amendment something up and larger going on. JS

      But I found this.
      In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the fetus’ only inherent constitutionally protected right is the right to be born, overturning a High Court ruling that a fetus additionally possessed the children’s rights guaranteed by Article 42A of the Constitution.

      1. Robert, the fact that some lawsuits are filed might have some interest. I’d be more interested in the legal arguments and resulting decisions, although I’m not convinced that the courts always get it right.

        I don’t find the 2018 Supreme Court decision to which you refer. Would you cite it? I provide here a link to a 2010 article b y Gregory J. Roden, “Unborn Children Are Constitutional Persons”:

          1. Robert, I have trouble finding a constitutional right for abortion in the 1st Amendment. It’s not an issue of free expression such as verbal or written expression, or of the arts. And I fail to see how banning or limiting abortions is respecting religion as was the intent of our Founding Fathers.

          2. Of course, you do. 🙂

            It seems abortion is clearly stated and allowed in Islam religion. That is the religious expression that is being denied. That goes against their 1st amendment right. Ironically that ban is forced by another religious expression which also goes against the 1st amendment.

            Sicne the fetus has neither any constitutional rights nor a fully human being. The rationale for a ban on an abortion procedure is the Sanctity of Life. In ways that views goes against Jesus’ birth, life, and sacrifice. But being a “Christian” value, that too is in violation of the 1st amendment when forced upon others.

            It’s funny how you ended your post with God is Good. Not sure of the “Dog Whistle” meaning behind it. But I remember two people going at it on Facebook over if God was Good or Great. It got so intense I thought they would trade blows. 🥊

            “Let’s say, God’s OK. 😂

            God gave you existence (life) in this world, but your world is not all sunshine and roses. It rains.

            One can say this world can be so mean, not only can a woman be abused, brutally sexually assaulted, to say the least. That woman can be forced to have a child from the very person who brutally attacked and raped her. JS


    2. Basic problem of when a human is alive. Religions differ.
      Your religion talks about at time of conception .
      My religion , which is much older than yours, talks about ‘first breath’
      Making members of my religion follow rules that follow yours is unconstitutional.

      Letting men make the rules gif women is just plain bullshit

      1. Religions may differ in their rules and generally oppress women. That’s teh gay factors, penis size factor, or male dominance.

        You are correct religion’s rules or beliefs can’t be forced on others in America. That is the heart of the 1st amendment. The sanctity of life is a religious Christian belief or value. To impose it would be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

        Since the Fetus currently has no constitutional rights. If a religion allows abortion to deny it would be also unconstitutionally.

        Religious rules or laws don’t trump the constitution. To Book’s point, getting the court to say a fetus has constitutional rights which would effectively ban abortion in America, Which tends to hold the final say on constitutional laws.

        Again this SC ruling says abortion is not a constitutional right, allowing states to not have to provide it, banning it. But the same court should rule on if not allowing access to banning an abortion is in violation of the 1st amendment. It’s a legitimate claim. If is angel fight is not taken up by the left something funny going on, and it’s not really about women or their rights. which is equally plain bullshit. JS

      2. Marshall, simply recognizing that America is a Judeo/Christian nation does not offend the 1st Amendment. There are aspects of Judaism and Christianity which are broadly accepted natural laws, like “Thou shalt not steal” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness”.

        In Roe v. Wade, the court allowed for an abortion up until the beginning of the 3rd trimester. In the same decision, the court commented that it would be willing to reconsider its decision at any time that there would be a showing that live began prior to that point. There was no reference to Christianity, Judaism or any religion for that position. Since then, there have been many advancements in medical technology. One of those has been ultra-sounds. It is reported that 80% of pregnant women who initially want an abortion opt not to when they see the ultra-sounds. Circumstantial evidence can be court-acceptable.

        What is your religion? Where and how does it approve abortions?

        Also, I believe you recently commented that you have a law degree. From where is that degree? Are you a licensed attorney?

        1. Ethan
          There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian
          Christianity began as a breakaway sect/cult of former Jews.
          Judaism does not recognize a son of G=d, Immaculate conception, a Pope/religious hierarchy.
          There are thousands of pages of Responsa dealing with abortion and Jewish Law.

          I passed the CT Bar Exam in Feb 2011. I do not hold a license, as I am retired and never practiced in CT. My Trust clients all moved from CT to Florida a long time ago. There is no personal or economic advantage to my holding a license, paying the state and bar association fees, being subject to being assigned pro bono criminal work, etc.

          I am now retired.

          When my mother died about 7 years ago, I was on the courthouse in New Haven filing estate papers (as the executor). A judge I know caught me in the hallway and said he’d been looking for me, that I wasn’t returning his calls and that I was being assigned a pro bono criminal case. I said you can’t do that. #1 I never practiced criminal law, #2 I went to Law School in Massachusetts and have no idea about Connecticut Criminal law, as the only law classes I took were Federal and #3 Although I passed the CT Bar Exam with your daughter, I never was sworn in or paid for licensure. Judge was ticked off, but nothing he could do about it.

          1. Marshall, the Jewish and Christian faiths are fundamentally interrelated. They have the same foundation. The Christian faith is the completion of what the Jewish scripture foretells, promises and looks forward to. It is not a breakaway sect or cult of former Jews. It includes completed, Messianic or Christian Jews.

            Much of our American governmental systems including governmental structure and judicial systems are based on guidelines given in the Pentateuch.

            You have not given any specific reference that Judaism supports abortion. I provide a link here which explains that Orthodox Judaism is quite pro-life.

          2. Brook, you can do same the for Islam. Didn’t, the Archangel Gabriel appear to Muhammad? T.

            While they all have their different takes on Jesus. They are all cut for the same cloth. In the Quran, the only chapter to be named after a woman (I think) was about virgin birth and Mary.

            However, it is only completed in the eyes of a Christian, not the Jewish people. Somewhat, because they, Christians, also say he will come again. For what, if it’s complete? JS

            What do you get when you place Christians, Jews, and Muslims in one place? Jerusalem. 🙂

            P.S There are a lot of problematics and extremes in these books. 🤣 JS


  4. Brook, BTY jsut because the SC ruled there’s no constitutional right in the US constitution to abortion doesn’t mean denying someone’s right to access one is not unconstitutional.

    Since the fetus has no constitutional protection and banning abortion is based on the sanctity of life, a “Christian” religious beliefs and values. It would violate 1st Amendment rights.

    Moreover in Islam the Quran allows them to have an abortion, To deny it would also violate their 1st Amendment. If you don’t hear about lawsuits in states that ban abortion outright or even to the level of 120 days and the heathy of the mother allowed in Islam it would violate their religious beliefs under the 1st Amendment also.

    Those are standing constitutional arguments. So if you don’t hear anything from the left, politically, Plan Parenthood, or the ACLU regarding laws suits in states that enacted laws banning access to abortion, and since states like CT that are protecting woman’s right to access are gearing up for people to come to their state seeking access to abortion, yet no one on that side, including the D’s, aren’t gearing up to fight for 1st amendment violation to access abortion in those states that banned it. We will have our answer, and this is more about political identity politics than woman’s rights (religious/freed of) and access to an abortion.

    If that’s the case and no lawsuits are filed on the grounds of 1st Amendment violation, ladies don’t get upset with the Right for their fight, look at your side, the left for not fighting your fight. But I am sure they will tell the people to get out the vote and vote out the evil religious rights. JS

  5. The logic that Alito uses in the draft opinion leans heavily on history — history that he gets egregiously wrong. Alito explicitly dismisses the distinction between ending a pregnancy before or after quickening, a distinction that was critical to the way American women and American physicians traditionally thought about pregnancy. In early America as in early modern England, abortion before “quickening” was legal under common law and widely accepted in practice.


Leave a Reply