CNN's Erick Erickson responds to criticism of a Red State post declaring that “mass bloodshed” may be necessary if Roe isn't overturned:

First, I'd like to point out that I did not, contrary to the claims, write the post. However, I do stand by it.

Second, the accusation of the left is that both I and this site are calling for armed rebellion due to the persistent legal killing of children in this country. They are both lying and ignorant of history.

Erickson then spends a dozen paragraphs not addressing the key wording in the original post. Here it is again:

Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support. [Emphasis added]

Erickson responds to criticism of that paragraph by insisting that Red State condemns violence:

We at RedState are mindful that there are those so frustrated with this country allowing the lawful killing of children that those people are perfectly willing to take a life to preserve a life.

We not only do not condone that, but we condemn it.

But the paragraph in question said that mass bloodshed will be necessary if “those committed to justice” fail to “send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.”

It didn't say mass bloodshed will unfortunately but inevitably occur if those conditions are not met. It said mass bloodshed will be necessary.

In responding to criticism of the post, Erickson addressed that wording only by saying it “sound[s] like a caveat, but it is not a caveat to any of us here.” Whatever that means. He did, however, say he stands by the post, so … here we are: Erick Erickson thinks “mass bloodshed” will be necessary if anti-abortion activists fail to convey to their elected officials the importance of overturning Roe v. Wade. Not just inevitable: “Necessary.”

And tonight, CNN will feature him as a contributor to its State of the Union coverage.