That idiocy above is courtesy of Occupy Democrats, who are responsible for many of the dumbest memes on the web, and a longtime friend who may be sliding into dementia based on the fact that she posted that to Facebook approvingly. In addition to serving as an integrity test for the woke and their knee-jerk allies, the leaked draft opinion portending a reversal of Roe v. Wade has also been a boon in that it has largely exposed the logical and ethical deficits of the pro-abortion position. Its advocates can’t really argue intelligently on the merits, or if they can, they’re not. What does the supposedly clever statement above have to do with abortion? No one is regulating sex. That’s a straw man. (The last few days have been an orgy of straw men.) The reversal of Roe means that there is no Constitutional right to kill the results of your own conduct when you are careless, reckless or unlucky. Moreover, there never was one: the “right” found in Roe was made up out of whole cloth at the peak of the sexual revolution and as women’s rights were a mounting cultural feve. A mediocre SCOTUS justice (the otherwise forgettable Harry Blackmun) wrote an unpersuasive, bootstrapping opinion that virtually no lawyer nor legal scholar respected, except that some liked the result.
Now the demoralized Roe fans are reduced to threats, fantasies, insults and dire predictions based on the fallacious reasoning that since the Court (may have) overturned this single, especially bad and still destructive opinion after 50 years, no established SCOTUS precedent is safe. Since Roe, there have been more than 63 million American lives ended in the womb, most of which would be still lives today had their mothers not availed themselves of the “right” to snuff them out for varying reasons. That rather material distinction, as Justice Alito clearly explains, takes Roe out of the usual class of stare decisus cases.
Since we last visited the freakout…
- The speculation about who the leaker might be has gotten wilder by the hour. A prominent legal ethicist suggested today that Justice Roberts was the likely culprit, and his announced search for the leaker is a sham. A lawyer friend of mine does not believe that any law clerk would do such a thing, and is certain that careless SCOTUS procedures allowed a janitor or secretary to get a copy. The one claim that can be dismissed out of hand is the claim that the leaker is a “whistle-blower,” though making that argument is a tell. Just because progressives treat abortion as a cult doesn’t make eliminating the right to an abortion a crime.
- Here is the wise and well articulated position of Democratic Senate candidate Tim Ryan, running in Ohio, after being asked by a Fox New talking head if he would have any limits on abortion:
Look, I think what we had established in Roe is something that we can continue to work with, And I think those can be the parameters. But then again if you get rid of what was established law, which in many ways was conservative, to keep that, to appreciate stare decisis, and make sure we appreciate the law. If we move away from that, you’re going to get states like Ohio that have some of the most extreme laws in the whole country, where if you’re a young girl and you’ve been raped or there’s been incest, that you can’t — you have — the state, the government is going to force you to bring that baby to the [crosstalk]. I just don’t think that’s …
Do you think Ryan comprehends the principle that a human life is the same regardless of how it came into being? Can’t someone explain it to him?
The Fox News interviewer repeated the question: did Ryan think any limitations on abortion, like late term abortions of viable fetuses, were reasonable. Answer:
Look, you’ve got to leave it up to the woman, because — you and I sitting here can’t account for all of the different scenarios that a woman dealing with the complexities of a pregnancy are going through. How can you and I figure that out?
Got it. Ryan hasn’t thought about the issue at all, beyond the “it’s a woman’s right to choose” cant he parrots.
- On “The View,” first advocated by, of course, the dumbest of the dumb, Joy Behar, the silly ladies seriously suggest that a sex strike, a la “Lysistrata,” might save Roe. This raises missing the point to Olympian heights.
- CNN’s Laura Coates told audiences that because SCOTUS overturned Roe, nothing could stop the Court from banning interstate travel. She actually said this on the air. Such ignorance so prominently displayed should have earned her at least a suspension if not a visit from the men in white coats and carrying butterfly nets.
- Consistently perceptive conservative pundit and former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy makes the excellent point that the Court must accelerate the release of the final opinion, because the Left thinks it can change the opinion by intimidation:
The viability of the court as a deliberative judicial institution is at stake. If the opinion or the vote tabulation were to change in any meaningful way, it would appear that the justices caved to intimidation tactics — which would simply breed more intimidation tactics. We’d have not the rule of law but the law of the jungle…Until the ruling is formally issued, the radical left — the people who destroy such norms as judicial confidentiality, the ones vowing to “burn it down” if they don’t get their way — will believe it can still change the outcome by intimidating one or more of these five justices.
Moreover, McCarthy says,
That’s how serious this is and why the leak must be regarded as a criminal offense worthy of investigation, prosecution and imprisonment.
The leak is a corrupt act that was patently intended to influence the outcome of the Dobbs case. That makes it a criminal obstruction of that judicial proceeding. Obstruction is the charge that the Biden Justice Department has brought against some of the most serious Capitol riot defendants, whose corrupt acts were intended to influence and intimidate Congress into changing the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. It is even more clearly applicable to court cases — we don’t call it obstruction of justice for nothing.