Spare me the faux Republican outrage over Chuck Schumer. We all know who the real people in danger are

You know who I’m scared for? Clue: it's not Brett Kavanaugh or Neil Gorsuch

When someone rarely makes public statements, it’s always interesting to see what moves them to step in the limelight.

Take Chief Justice John Roberts, for example. The highest-ranking member of the US Supreme Court delivered a rare rebuke on Wednesday, chastising New York Senator Chuck Schumer for his comments on abortion rights.

What did Schumer say to provoke Roberts’s ire? Well, he took to task Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, in remarks about a major reproductive rights case currently under review by the Supreme Court.

“You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer said – in a public address, not, say, in an anonymous letter covered in cut-out letters from various periodicals. (That will become relevant in a minute.)

Roberts was incensed. “Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” he said, in what was only his second public response to someone criticising specific judges.

Naturally, others followed suit. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell referred to Schumer’s words as “a threat” – an “astonishingly reckless and completely irresponsible” one at that, with possibly “horrific unintended consequences.” Republican Senator Ted Cruz said Schumer should be censured for his remarks.

Schumer has since said he “shouldn’t have used” those specific words but denied threatening anyone, accusing Republicans of “manufacturing outrage” through his comments.

To which I say: lovely. When these men are done having a war of words, perhaps we could get back to the problem at the heart of the conversations here – abortion rights and conservatives' persistent, dangerous efforts to limit them as much as possible in the "land of the free".

In case this got lost in the noise, here’s what’s at stake here: The Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case that could severely limit abortion access in Louisiana. All nine justices are weighing in on a law that would require doctors in the state to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in order to perform abortions. Depending on the outcome of the Supreme Court case, only one of Louisiana’s three clinics (yes, that’s three for a whole state of 4.6 million people) could remain open.

This is all happening in the context of renewed efforts to overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 landmark Supreme Court decision protecting abortion rights across the US. This is what we should be concerned about – not a game of manufactured outrage between people who won’t ever need an abortion in their lives.

But if you have a burning desire to obsess over Schumer’s remarks – fine! Let’s play that game for a minute. After all, we all need hobbies in these turbulent times.

Did Schumer use strong words? Yes. Stronger than the words people would typically use when referring to Supreme Court justices? Probably. When he talked of “paying the price”, did he mean he was going to personally club the knees of the people targeted by his comments? Call me an idealist, but my guess on this one is a firm no.

What Schumer was likely referring to instead is a little something called accountability (watch his full remarks and you will hear him refer to the November presidential election shortly after his “pay the price” moment). If you make such-and-such decision, you might have to pay a political price. People might hold you responsible for your actions. Imagine that! Apparently, this is such a novel concept for some that when someone – like Schumer – tries to introduce it to the public discourse, it’s immediately passed off as a personal threat.

All this performative fear is supremely misplaced. You know who I’m scared for? The people, inside and outside of Louisiana, who will need abortions in the near future – especially poor people, as well as people who receive subpar healthcare due to their ethnicity, body shape, or any other factor that shouldn’t come into play. (Don’t believe me? Google “implicit bias healthcare”.)

Now’s not the time to focus on semantics. There’s a saying in French (fine, it’s a quote from the movie Amelie) that goes: “When the finger points to the sky, the imbecile looks at the finger.” Schumer’s statement is the finger. The sky is abortion rights. Let’s all stop collectively gazing at Schumer’s fingerprints and turn our gazes to the stormy skies.