According to a document that was leaked to Politico and published today, the US Supreme Court looks set to overturn the controversial Roe v Wade decision, which erected the slaughtering of children as a “constitutional right” for women in 1973 and has continued to poison American politics and society ever since. There is no doubt regarding the authenticity of the draft, which appears to have been authored by Justice Samuel Alito on behalf of a majority of Justices, and which bluntly states that Roe v Wade was “egregiously wrong from the outset”. The leak is apparently a desperate last-ditch attempt of leftist groups within the court, including perhaps even one or two of the Democrat-appointed Justices, to unleash a mob of militant pro-abortion radicals both on the streets and in the media that they hope will ultimately prevent the draft decision from being adopted.
Once again, the leak evidences to what lengths pro-abortion militants will go to promote their cause: to them, the pretended “right” to kill unborn children is the most sacred of all purposes, an end that justifies any means with absolutely no exception. They loved the Supreme Court as long as it stood on their side and could be instrumentalized to fabricate new “constitutional rights” that were never contained in the Constitution, such as abortion, contraception, sodomy, sodo-marriage, or transgender self-definition. They began to hate the Court when new Justices were appointed who could be expected to actually apply the law rather than freely invent it according to the whims of woke ideology. They began to fear the Court when, thanks to the courageous judicial appointment policies of President Donald Trump, these authentic judges, for the first time in more than half a century, suddenly held a majority of votes that would allow them to correct (at least some of) the errors and deliberate abuses of the past decades. They routinely used character assassination strategies to torpedo the appointments of judges whom they suspected of being “conservative”, in some cases (e.g. Robert Bork, Harriet Myers) successfully, in other cases (Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barett) less so. When they realized that thanks to recent appointments the Court was now majoritarily composed of serious-minded lawyers rather than leftist ideologues, they immediately attempted an initiative to add new seats to the judicial bench in order to fill them with “reliable” left-wing militants. They used a nasty and humiliating billboard campaign (‘Breyer, retire’)to bully one of their own, the left-wing but nevertheless rather well-mannered Justice Stephen Breyer, into timely resignation in order to be sure that the ensuing vacancy could still be filled before the Midterm elections in which, according to most forecasts, the increasingly radicalized Democratic Party will lose its majority in both Chambers of Congress. They even threatened physical violence against Justices who not decide according to their wishes. The unprecedented leak of the draft decision that would overturn Roe v Wade is thus anything but harmless: maybe it is hoped that the mob will simply intimidate some of the Justices to such an extent that they switch sides, but it also could be that the physical elimination of one or two Justices by radicalized mobsters is the ultimate purpose that is being sought. With the long series of antecedents described above, it sadly must be assumed that there is nothing that pro-abortion America would shirk away from doing if only it helps to keep abortion “legal”. There is no respect for law, no respect for democracy, no respect for institution …. but hey, what would you expect from people who openly sey they consider baby-slaughtering a “right”?
The draft itself is remarkable in that it carefully avoids to directly deal with the substance. Abortion, according to this draft, is simply a “controversial issue” that should be regulated by elected law-givers rather than judges. It is (allegedly) for this and no other reason that Alito and others want to overturn Roe v Wade and hand back the competence to regulate the matter to state legislators. Nowhere is there any mention of what abortion actually is: the intentional killing of innocent children. Nowhere is there any discussion of the fact that the fetus is a human being that, logically, should enjoy human rights. Nowhere is it said that a state legislator could not, if he so chooses, allow abortion up until birth, including through the most gruesome methods. Instead, the draft contains a somewhat dry, but very systematic and highly erudite examination of the factual errors, the logical flaws, and the apparent inconsistencies with well-established constitutional doctrine that made Roe one of the worst judicial miscarriages in history. As Alito sarcastically notes, the Supreme Court of 1973 simply had the “feeling” that a right to abortion was included somewhere in the US Constitution – but they were unable to explain where exactly.
This will certainly suffice to finish off Roe, but will it settle the issue for good? The crazy left was never interested in sound legal reasoning – it only wanted baby-killing to be “legal”, irrespective of the logical contortions that may be necessary to achieve that aim. Abortion will continue being a contentious issue in the US, and cases will continue to reach the Supreme Court. But the focus will shift: some Democrat-controlled states have adopted extremely radical abortion laws that not only allow abortion up until birth with practically no restriction, but at the same time also seek to outlaw all opposition against, or criticism of, abortion. What is more, these laws also use the money of local taxpayers to fund abortions for women from other states or countries, thus enabling a new and unprecedented level of taxpayer-funded abortion tourism. The question that the Supreme Court will have to answer is not whether laws restricting abortions are constitutional; instead, it will be the constitutionality of permissive abortion laws that will come under scrutiny. It seems clear by now that the Constitution does not include a “right to abortion”, – but does it perhaps include, hidden somewhere in its penumbral fringes, a right to life?
Beyond abortion, it is notable that the draft contains an arsenal of arguments that could be used to overturn not only Roe v Wade, but any and every judicial overreach of the last decades. This applies in particular to same-sex “marriage”, which – similar as with Roe v Wade and abortion – was imposed by the narrow 5-4 Supreme Court decision in 2016 and remains highly controversial for its apparent lack of principled legal reasoning. The public pressure to revisit sodo-“marriage” currently seems to be a bit less strong than in the case of abortion – but that may change in the near future. In any case it is remarkable that Chief Justice John Roberts, who appears to be the only among the so-called “conservative” Justices to be willing to leave the controversial Roe decision at least partially intact, at the time wrote a scathing dissent in which he pointed out that the Supreme Court’s shameless arrogation of law-giving power in Obergefell v Hodges “had nothing to do with the Constitution”. If any case that allows to re-assess the matter reaches the Supreme Court, it will be difficult for the Chief Justice not to vote to overturn Obergefell.
In any case, the leaked documents are a silver lining in this bleak year of 2022. We should await the final decision before we celebrate.