One sentence stood out like a pimple on a teenager's forehead:
Both men [Scalia and Alito] tout their own restraint in deferring to majorities that step on individual rights (including a woman's decision whether to bear a child).
Muse on that one, that last fragment: "...a woman's decision whether to bear a child." It's a child, Gordon admits. (Oopsie.) The woman has a "decision" about that child: "whether to bear" the "child."
That thought is incomplete, though, isn't it? She has a decision "whether to bear" the child -- or what? Whether to bear it or what?
Or have it killed.
But Mr. Gordon doesn't finish his own thought. Maybe he can't. It appears that the former law clerk for pro-abort Justice Ruth "Darth" Bader ("Luke -- I will not be your mother!") Ginsburg has a shameful position, a position that cannot be defended in the full light of day. He has to phrase it just so, or the jig is up, the curtain is pulled aside, and it's all over for the pro-babykilling set. Most Americans don't favor the indiscriminate killing of inconvenient or imperfect babies.
Watch for that, and you'll notice The Missing "Or" in all pro-abort rhetoric. The pro-abortion stance is a position that has to be assumed, chanted, or forced. It cannot be explained, examined, and defended.
Jesus said it, and of course He was right. Build your house on His words, and it will stand. Don't, and it won't (Matthew 7).