Today’s Dobbs Leak Freakout Developments And Observations

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 laLysistrata,” 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.



37 thoughts on “Today’s Dobbs Leak Freakout Developments And Observations

  1. Regarding Tim Ryan, that is good to know so that we won’t be voting for him.

    In case anyone was wondering, my wife and I have abandoned the state of Wyoming and moved to Ohio. (I took a different job, which probably lands me in the camp of the Great Resignation…) It turns out that moving in the midst of supply chain issues and ballooning inflation, however, is not the best of ideas.

    I’ve been trying to keep up to date on current events, and this Dobbs leak is pretty intense. I honestly did not believe we’d see the Supreme Court, no matter how conservative it leaned, actually overrule Roe. And of course, the resulting freak-out has been a sight to behold.

    I am on the fence as to whether this freak-out is truly the Left losing its collective mind over losing (allegedly) consequence-free sex, or if the heart of the freak-out is actually coldly calculated to intimidate the conservatives and rally or coerce anyone else into the camp of the Left. Sex is one thing, power is another. After all, if inflation is a losing issue, if COVID is a losing issue, if public schools are a losing issue, if the border crisis is a losing issue, if Ukraine is a losing issue, then surely the “Trump-Appointed” Supreme Court overruling Roe has to be the Godsend that will swing the pendulum back to the Left, if only they play it right.

    I also sincerely hope the Left does push forward a mass Lysistratra-inspired strike from sex. If I’m wrong, and the freak-out really is about losing consequence-free sex, then maybe a plunge into voluntary abstinence will open some eyes. You won’t actually die if you don’t have sex. You and your partner might actually find something else to do with your time that will deepen your relationship. And maybe you’ll like not having to check that pregnancy test several times a month, always fearful that it might show the dreaded “positive”…

    • I believe it’s both. If you notice, the far left’s policies are always about removing responsibility for bad decisions. You had reckless sex? Get rid of the baby. You didn’t pay your rent because you smoked pot and lost your job? Unemployment benefits. You don’t want to go back to work because you have an irrational fear of COVID-19? Let’s keep paying your rent. You committed a crime (and you are a minority), no jail time or possibly even a fine.

      The test is too hard? Lower the standards. You can’t speak proper English? Attack proper English as elitist. Your culture teaches that it’s okay to beat your wife? Don’t judge other cultures who are different than you? There’s a dumbing down going on in this country.

      The only people they want to attack are powerful white men or anyone who is powerful and conservative, even if they aren’t white. Liberals used to celebrate success. They used to see a company like Apple or Microsoft and celebrate it. The difference was between those who believed in a bigger social welfare state and those who didn’t. The difference today is between outright socialists and moderate conservatives.

      Now, anyone that’s rich had to cheat and exploit, and successful people are, almost by definition, to be despised and taxed to hell. Instead, celebrate “victims.” Whatever a society promotes as virtuous will become what people do. Since victims are considered the highest status today, victims will proliferate.

    • Good to hear . . . erm . . . read your comments. I wondered where/what your position in this would be. As always, it is clear and perceptive. I suggested or thought the release was more about stirring up Democrat voters more than it’s about abortion. After all, power is what the Left craves.


  2. How do people post something like this and not see the obvious error? There’s two people in the act that produces a child. A penis alone or a vagina alone is useless in producing a child.

    There’s a theme on the far left recently, and it’s that they are war with reality. I don’t mean this in a hyperbolic sense either. I mean that, literally, reality upsets them. They think people can choose their own gender. They think women can choose just not to be pregnant. They think the government can just spend endlessly without consequences. They think individual rights are a hindrance to an omnipotent government. They want to control reality and get upset when they run into actual reality. As a religious person, I think this explains why liberals are also much less likely to believe in God, but that’s a debate for another time.

    I really noticed this war against reality with COVID-19. The far left actually believed that we should put everyone on house arrest for years, force the vaccine on everyone, and spend trillions of dollars in the process. There was no nuance or balance at all except among conservatives and centrists. Even today, I have two co-workers who are fully vaxxed and boosted, who don’t have a compromised immune system, and who still wear a mask. I work at a college, and the administration strongly encourages everyone in leadership to still wear masks in large gatherings.

    I believe in freedom, so people can wear the mask if they want, but at this point, a person consistently wearing a mask tells me that person has no way to distinguish between actual threats and exaggerated ones. Wearing a mask will somehow protect them from death.

    • Sooner, I’ve come to believe there are a large number of women who are at war with the existence of men. Lesbians seem to be everywhere. Lesbians can have children by being inseminated by their gay friends’ semen. Who needs to hassle with a guy? Women can become guys and be better at it than guys! With modern medicine and surgery, anything is possible. The statement above is the corollary of the left’s foundational belief that everything would be wonderful if there weren’t any Republicans, i.e, everything would be wonderful if there weren’t any guys. It’s also analogous to blaming everything on Trump: blame everything relating to that annoying thing called sex on asshole guys and their God damned boners. I’m really tired of it. Like anti-racism, I think current LBGTQ thought is essentially a separatist movement. They want part of the country declared Lesbos where no OEM heterosexual men will be allowed. Maybe Park Slope could be re-named Lesbos and fully populated with the elect.

  3. Everyone on the right freaking out that overturning Roe v. Wade will boost the democrats in the midterms needs to take a good hard look at how the left responds any time they don’t get their way and consider the impact that actually has on the average voter. The insane antics, hateful rhetoric, riots, threats and general thuggish behavior drives people away. It also highlights how truly radical the left has become. Normal people who used to vote Democrat are looking at this and coming to the painful realization they just cannot vote for this anymore. The typical position on abortion in this country is not to believe murdering full term babies after they are born is a good thing. Average people do not think threatening to murder Supreme Court justices is a valid political statement.

    I lean towards believing that the draft was released in an attempt to juice midterm turnout for democrats. I don’t think it is going to work out the way they had planned. Whoever leaked this may end up in the suds when their political machinations blow up in their face.

  4. i’ve been too depressed lately to even comment on things. I had NO idea people were so effing stupid, and hateful.

    the HATE i have heard from the LEFT who are FREAKING OUT because God forbid they or their friends can or can’t kill a child at will is honestly so scary.

    And, it goes from “we care so much about the girl who got raped who has to have her own sister, since her father raped her!” and the examples they are giving are NOT what most abortions are. And the excuse of “the pro life people don’t care about babies AFTER they are born they are NOT pro life at all!” ok so… even if that WAS true… does that mean that baby should die?

    The absolute inability to even have a conversation blows my mind.

    I posted a very level headed reply to a comment that said “i’m not pro murdering babies, i am….

    “pro the girl who got pregnant by her dad and her 11 year old body can’t handle having a baby.”

    “the girl who’s pregnant and it is going to kill her because it’s in her tubes”


    so I made a very logical comment thanking them for caring so much for those women, and what would happen if BOTH sides approached the table of conversation knowing that the other side also was caring and not a horrible enemy? would that not at least make the going into the conversation better? knowing you were conversing with a caring human being? I think so.

    And i was met with “did you even read the post before you posted this cliche’ thing that you got off some pro life site?” and “stop gaslighting! people who are pro life don’t give a crap about any one’s life unless it’s hidden in a womb, not gay, not trans, not black no one!”

    I was shocked… But i hung in there… and don’t have the stomach yet to go back and see the replies.

    anyway, something that seems horrible is happening in this world and my more positive friends say it’s a good thing that before the birth of something good is always the crumbling of what doesn’t work… which I do agree with but man, just blown away at the “good people” who are proving ot be the most hateful Ive ever seen.

    All I can lean on is Byron Katie’s teaching that under all anger is fear… and to try to see that… so yeah if i see their hate as fearful… it does make me want to be more kind to them, and understanding.

  5. Perennial advocate for bad ethics, Kyle Griffin and his own commentariat proving why the Founders did NOT settle on pure democracy:

  6. I am interested in what people think of this bipartisan conversation about abortion (link to the recording below). There are some perspectives I agree with and a few I disagree with, but everyone in the discussion is quite thoughtful and acknowledges each other’s concerns about what’s at stake. You may be surprised at the nuanced perspectives a person can hold.

    I’d like to see Braver Angels succeed at its goal of building trust and understanding between people across the various political affiliations. Any feedback would be much appreciated.

    • Sage couldn’t answer a question directly to save her life and literally dithered on every point that she knew in her heart that the pro-abortion crowd is wrong about.

      Alma’s gonna make a man super happy some day.

      The host, a pro-abortionist, Monica, did a very good job.

      April, along with Alma, made the most sense in terms of remaining consistent. But I am biased – they were the anti-abortion crowd.

      I don’t think the discussion covered anything that hasn’t already been covered.

      Having calm conversations is useful. But eventually decisions have to be made. We’re at that point now, so frankly, making sure the conversation is polite, while still valuable, is a lot less valuable than pursuing ethically appropriate policy – even if it upsets a women’s only discussion group.

      • Thanks for the feedback! I’m considering writing a take on abortion as well, in case it helps move things forward in some decisive fashion.

        I have noticed that Braver Angels helps bring perspectives into the discussion but doesn’t seem to help people negotiate a path forward, so I’m trying to show them how to do that. They seem pretty set on the scope of their messaging, though.


    Women Health. Summer 1979;4(2):159-67.
    Abortion in early America : Z Acevedo

    “This piece describes abortion practices in use from the 1600s to the 19th century among the inhabitants of North America. The abortive techniques of women from different ethnic and racial groups as found in historical literature are revealed. Thus, the point is made that abortion is not simply a “now issue” that effects select women. Instead, it is demonstrated that it is a widespread practice as solidly rooted in our past as it is in the present.”

    ” Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. ”

    Alito is factually incorrect in his statements.

    • Zoe: Your citation was published in 1979, six years after Roe was decided. There would be no reason to publish this unless the practice was in need of a defense. That in itself suggests that significant attitudinal differences existed in American society even after Roe was decided. Those differences are still prevalent today and may even be more entrenched throughout the nation. Alito’s opinion made a point that Roe and Casey could not be settled simply by decree.

      I also went and looked at some of the other abstracts; none of them allowed for any scrutiny of the thesis presented. One was from Planned Parenthood itself to promote the historical assessment that abortion was frequently practiced. So what, murder frequently went unpunished as well. Moreover, what they describe are induced miscarriages and not dilation and evacuation techniques which involves the actual physical destruction of a growing human being. The morning after pill is the equivalent of the black root and cedar root methodology used by indigenous peoples. What is missing from these arguments is that these peoples did not have luxury of having multiple forms of pharmaceutically based and mechanical contraceptive devices that exist today. Thus women have more birth control choices today than women prior to 1973.

      The most important issue at hand is:

      “During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony.”

      This is exactly what the Alito draft states – Leave it up to the states.

      As for the historical background, the article itself suggests that the practice was either totally socially unacceptable or with limitations.

      “In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. ”

      That is hardly a ringing social endorsement.

      Further, irrespective of methodology and prevalence among indigenous tribes, Alito was referring to historical American jurisprudence. Many outrageous behaviors were prevalent then and still are, but that simply does legitimize them through historical practice. Monopolization of business and gaining satisfaction by dueling were also historically prevalent, but we outlawed those, and this court is not saying that abortion is illegal it merely states that the decisions on this issue are best left to the states.

      • Chris,

        Once again you gave surgically sliced the argument into pieces. Nicely done. His kind of analysis and response is what keeps this blog interesting.

        The abstract cited suggests that, historically, abortion was widely practiced and accepted; therefore, we should stay in course. By that logic, we should reinstate slavery, involuntary servitude, and repeal women’s suffrage. That would work well.


      • Thanks for this. I was going to question the point of anything she posted just there but usually that type of post of hers is a drive by bomb throw that she rarely follows up on, so I didn’t respond. In retrospect, I’m glad that you did.

        I mean – if her point is to say that “we thought it was ok in 1619 to kill babies, it should be ok now” then I’d have just had to take a nap at the willful obtuseness.

        • ” “The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” Alito writes.”

          • “not deeply rooted” doesn’t mean “always hated”. If I recall, Alito’s brief roughly goes through, in general, the various approaches to abortion by the states in history with a brief summation of the concept rooted in America’s earliest legal system.

            That may have had one off moments of toleration or clear opportunities for homemade under-the-radar potions to effect and abortion is where we get “rooted”. That most states quickly prohibited the practice and the culture generally abhorred the practice is where we get “not deeply”.

            Alito is right to return this to the states, if that is what happened.

            Nevertheless – your side of the aisle should not be pained – to reiterate – some states will ban, most states will reach a compromise, and many states will still kill babies in a way that makes even Europeans and possibly Australians blush.

      • From “zoebrain” we have;
        “In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. ”

        And from “Chris Marschner” we have;
        “During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony.”

        This is exactly what the Alito draft states – Leave it up to the states.

        The earliest reference I can find to abortion being illegal in the United States is the following;
        where a Connecticut preacher Ammi Rogers in his late forties had a relationship with 21 year old Asenath Smith. He unsuccessfully tried to abort the child which was later stillborn. Rogers was put on trial but nothing he had done was technically illegal. Abortion before quickening was not illegal and after quickening was against “hazy” common law with no actual statute.
        So subsequently, in 1821, Connecticut became the first state to pass an abortion law in the United States.
        Quickening, when a woman starts to feel their baby’s movement, normally happens around four to five months.

        As all thirteen states at the time of the signing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were former colonies of Britain, I don’t see how French, Spanish and Portuguese laws have any relevance.

  8. “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.”

    Well, if they can accomplish that, why do they need abortions?

    • The sex strike in Lysistrata was on behalf of the young women who couldn’t get married and establish families and have children with the young men.

      By all means, let the leftists strike to end irresponsible sex that’s wrecking our society.

  9. Just to correct the meme, a penis in and of itself cannot cause a pregnancy. A penis that interacts with a vagina can cause pregnancy as long as the holder of the vagina has a functioning ovary-uterine system. within a certain time frame.

  10. As usual, I came late to this discussion, so most of what I might have said has already been expressed, and probably better than I could have done.

    Nevertheless, I will make one comment, and apologies if this was discussed in the previous plethora of comments. Wasn’t Roe v Wade a twist and corruption of the Griswold case? In Griswold, the Supreme Court struck down several states’ laws that made contraception, in the privacy of one’s own home, illegal (!). SCOTUS rightly opined that this was a matter of privacy. Inevitable decision. So, privacy applies to contraception later applies to privacy for abortion. In what way, exactly? I have thought for a long time that the abortion issue should be tossed back to the States, especially as the great majority of states allow it and regulate it only in terms of the length of the pregnancy in question. We have always have a lot of nuts in this country: it is up to those with IQs over 80 to take an active part in what their own state decides.

    If Biden’s crowd pursues its restriction on freedom of speech on the basis of ‘disinformation,’ then they’ll have to get the pro-abortion rhetoric off the net, the airwaves, and the press. Hah! Fat chance: that Biden’s proposed restriction of free speech will actually be undertaken, and that if it were it would include leftist as well as conservative ideas and agit/prop.

    (Someone correct me if I got the Griswold facts wrong…)

    • Thanks for raising Griswold: we haven’t discussed it enough. You prompted me to check: I thought it was 9-0, but there were two dissenters, and neither was particularly conservative. But their opposition was principled: neither liked the laws, but they insisted that “privacy” was not a Constitutional right, perhaps anticipating how such an unmentioned right could be stretched and exploited.

      Hugo Black, the Court’s most erudite liberal, wrote that he was unpersuaded by the loose reasoning of the majority, and felt that there was no way to conclude that the Constitution contained a right to privacy. He also dismissed the views of the concurrences that it could be found in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Stewart agreed, and wrote that despite his personal view that the law was “uncommonly silly,” he felt that the Court had no choice but to find it constitutional.

      I agree with the theory that Black and Stewart were wrong, because the Constitution incorporates the Declaration, and privacy is covered by the rights of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    • To me – the privacy issue ultimately boiled down to what really is the primary hard ask of the anti-abortion crowd –

      IF abortion IS tantamount to murder, THEN, it is right to consider people who get abortions to be murderers.

      BUT, the ability to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that any expectant mother actively sought an abortion is NEARLY impossible. But it is possible in instances such as doctor assisted abortion. Which is what Roe jumped in to protect – arguing the state has no business asking the doctor (via patient confidentiality) exactly what procedure the mother came in for.

      In terms of an expectant mother drinking some homemade swill or ancient potion such as what zoe alludes to above – it is next to impossible to pursue investigating something like that *without* violating ALOT of people’s privacy and getting the investigation WRONG more often than not.

      Which is precisely where a “ban” on abortion would have to accept it’s losses and be comfortable with pushing abortion so far out of the limelight that we just “shrug” our shoulders and accept that we’ve done what is reasonably possible to stop abortion without becoming onerous on private citizens. It stops abortion in places where it would be easy to prove an abortion took place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.