What If There Is No Majority To Overturn Roe? An Alternative Theory Of The Supreme Court Leak
What if there is no majority to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the leak under the false premise that Alito represents the majority was to create a political firestorm under false pretenses?
At some point we will know who the leaker was of Justice Alito’s draft Opinion overruling Roe v. Wade. That Opinion, according to Politico, represents a court majority of five Justices which continues until recently.
The immediate and most obvious speculation (including by me) was that the leak was by a liberal/leftist, likely a law clerk, trying to create a firestorm of protest that would pressure one of those five Justices to wobble, much like Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly switched his vote on Obamacare in 2012. That explanation makes sense on several levels, including how protests were ready to go from the moment the Politico story published. Democrat politicians were ready to go also, making overheated threats and centering the 2022 election on the issue.
So at every level, it’s logical and obvious that the leak was by a lefty law clerk or other staffer at the Court in an attempt to prevent the Alito draft from becoming the issued majority Opinion of the court. (I’m discounting that a Justice him/herself was involved.)
Another view that has been proposed from the left, is that this was a leak by a righty law clerk, maybe even a Justice, in order to prevent one of the alleged five Justices backing Alito’s opinion from breaking loose. That makes little sense, since it presumes a conservative Justice or clerk would want to create a situation in which conservative Justices predictably would be targeted (as they are now). Though since we’re all speculating, it can’t be ruled out.
But the more I think about it, I’m wondering if everyone is being misdirected by the Politico reporting from the leaker that there is a majority still to overrule Roe. What if that’s not the case, what if there is a majority to, ahem, split the baby, don’t overturn Roe but find that Mississippi’s 15 week viability standard was valid, perhaps because of changes in the medical field since Roe. That is what I viewed at the time of the argument as the most likely outcome:
My “hot” prediction? The Court 6-vote majority, in an opinion by Roberts, upholds the Mississippi law, but finds it need not reach the issue of whether Roe v. Wade should be overturned. There will be at least three, possibly four, Justices with concurring opinions that they would overturn Roe v. Wade as wrongly decided.
Roberts will push hard to gain consensus not to overturn Roe v. Wade explicitly, preferring in the interest of the Court to dismember it limb by limb.
If that is where the majority is, not the Alito approach, then leaking makes even more sense for a lefty activist in the courthouse. If Roe survives, there are no protests, there are no Democrat talking points, and there is no help for the midterms. So an activist could leak using a false narrative that Alito represents the majority, can generate the protests and the energy in the base, can create an issue for the midterms, and at the end of the day, Roe survives, which can be spun as a victory for the protesters, proving the mob was able to intimidate the Justices.
Is this what happened? We’ll likely eventually find out, but for me, it’s a viable alternative.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I really hope Justice Roberts joins the majority. As a message to the leaker (and future potential leakers) that leaking is going to have exactly the opposite effect of what the leaker intends.
Not holding my breath, though.
All trust is gone. It’s too late.
😝
No chance Roe will be overturned. One or more of the Trump trio of appointees will fold. It’s who they are.
My wife was talking about the leak with her mother (MIL), and her mother said to her, “We need to vote them out (SC judges, sic).”
I simply looked at my wife, with my best impression of Mr. Spock’s one eyebrow arch, and said, “Your mother failed civics in elementary school, didn’t she?”
It actually makes a little more sense, since the decision would have been released long before the mid-terms and would probably be drowned out by subsequent bread and circuses before then.
If it is viable, this theory cannot be aborted!
If there is no majority, or it is discovered that sotomayor or another justice hired a “clerk” who lacked integrity and does not recluse themself from the final vote, then perhaps it is occasion to disband the “union” and let the states decide if they wish to again join each other, and if so to what extent, based on the original Constitution including the Bill of Rights (which arguably are not amendments but integral clarifications; you know for “to be abundantly clear”).
If DC (if one is an elected official, appointee or otherwise derives their income from that abyss, they shall be deemed to be a DC resident because “that is where their heart is”) wishes to continue to issue its own “federal” debt and grow its own food, produce its own energy, maintain its own army within its own borders – so be it. … They already know how to “eat their own”.
But for the states – each surely can muster its own militia (plenty of guns to go around). …
[Q: Are there any ships or aircraft actually based in DC ? … Of course the states can lend DC aircraft providing they use them to effect the “Pinochet Practice” of one-way flights for all DC inhabitants, dependents, other.}
There will not be a divorce.
Leftism which is just Marxism in disguise does not believe in letting others go their own way. The want total control of the country. You don’t hear leftists in America talking about divorce. You do hear them “othering” the right constantly.
What does this mean for America? More than likely it means civil war.
Leftists would allow the divorce if it promoted globalism. If dissolving the country could immediately lead to some kind of world gov’t run out of Turtle Bay, they’d do it in a heartbeat.
Better to fight and lose than to never fight and have been enslaved.
The last thing you want in your concentration camp is Merrick Garland as your camp commandant and Rashida Tlaib as your guard.
It’s coming.
We won’t lose
devilishly delicious. i personally think its gone, but in the world where conservative justices alway come short, this fits the bill
It speaks volumes about our national character that the Supreme Court can be intimidated by thuggery, even that some of our justices haven’t the spine to stand up to it. Just do the right thing! Let us take care of the rest. If it means more rioting, so be it. We won’t put up with it forever.
If the lefty justices care about respect for the court they should join the majority and give it the 9-0 beating it actually deserves. The don’t though they care about lefty goals and promoting the killing of babies.
It’s too bad RBG died last year. She also expressed her opinion that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional. I wonder how she would have voted?
I think we already have good reason to believe (based on the Obamacare flop-over) that at least one “Justice” doesn’t have the spine to stand up to thuggery. Let’s hope he redeems himself on this one and proves us wrong.
I’m not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens who leaked it.
Intimidating the jurors in the Chauvin case worked so well they decided to try it on the SCOTUS Justices. They have publicly announced their home addresses and the protests are in progress.
Psaki has already weighed in on the protests and has given the green light—see Psaki Won’t Condemn Activists Targeting SCOTUS Justices.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is: we’re in deep shit.
SCOTUS justices have paid-for personal security staff. The Chauvin jurors didn’t.
It wasn’t so much the Chauvin case as the Obamacare case, where John Roberts showed that he was spineless, and that he cares less about upholding his oath to the constitution than he does about pleasing the editorial writers at the New York Times. And then there were the 2020 election cases that the court refused to consider. This court has demonstrated repeatedly that it can be influenced by threats of lefty protests and violence.
This whole “Roberts is spineless” narrative – while true – misses the big picture: Epstein’s videos of Roberts having his jollies with underage girls.
because Roberts is A Friend of Dorothy and is afraid of being exposed
We may be in deep, but the left is in deeper.
How? Via this sentiment:
I’ve been wanting an excuse to pull the trigger.
Keep Roe, Roe, Roe your baby down the river Styx. Tune the standard of viability at the beginning of life to match the end of life. Aside from planned parent/hood (e.g. Planned Parenthood, Gosnell’s Solution, Whitmer/Michigan) the metrics of a baby’s life should at least match the metrics of granny’s life. Baby steps back to conception.
The justices have been threatened before. Perhaps one or more of the justices have had a gut full of the left and leaked Alito’s draft to draw the crazies out into the open, before cutting them off at the knees with their real decision, to deflate them completely on the lead up to November and send the right to the polls with a strong reminder of the real insurrection that needs put down.
That’s my view. The left is going to vent their spleen, start some riots and maybe try and storm the Supreme Court (delicious irony for all the tut tutting on their side about 1./6), but by November its back to gas prices, inflation, no southern border, crime, CRT and grooming in the classroom………… and the left will get pounded. Also if a justice caves and changes his or her opinion the right will be even more furious to come out in November.
I don’t think they’re clever that way
I hope you’re right. We desperately need a show of courage among our institutions. I wish they would just vote on this fast and put it out there so we can move on to the riots ASAP. There is no point letting this last into the elections. Voters are in the majority in favor of repealing Roe v. Wade. Even those who support abortion.
Most pro-abortion voters would support Roe v. Wade if it was being enforced but it isn’t. What is in practice is taxpayer-funded abortion on demand without restrictions. America is has NOT reached that level of barbarity yet. Pointing that out repeatedly is what will stop the radicals from winning. Repeal doesn’t revoke abortion rights. It just puts the issue right back where it belongs.
The leak makes it impossible for any justice in the majority to change their vote.
Agreed, certainly not if they don’t want to be viewed as comprised and giving in to intimidation. Fair or not that’s what the reality is for them.
Why? Roberts did it!
Yep, and he’s now widely held in contempt, for being a coward, by both sides
unfortunately the opposite is true
I disagree on the splitting the baby part.
We have Alito’s draft. It of course wrecked Roe and Casey.
If the court comes back with a final decision to something less than Alito’s draft it will be looked at as if political pressure from the outside can change the courts opinion. Yes his opinion is a draft but that draft was pretty damn clear on what was going to happen and why. It’s also 96 pages. A draft like that is not something you do if later you’re going to water it down and split the baby.
A final decision that splits the baby would actually make things worse for the court because the left would go crazy on a lot more decisions in an effort to influence the court before a final decision is issued.
I think this is a simple leak by a leftist clerk or even a SCOTUS judge (less likely) because they were infuriated that there are at least 5 judges who are ready to overturn abortion and send it back to the states.
It’s also 96 pages.
Holy moly! That puts it up there with the original decision, I think. (They had to overwrite it because it was the only way to bury the mendacity of the decision.)
The text of the Dobbs draft opinion isn’t that long. The last 30 pages are an appendix, listing and briefly describing, by state, the various abortion laws that were in effect in the various states in 1868.
Yeah, I don’t see how leaking the (draft) opinion ultimately helps the leftist side. Consider the ramifications in the current state of play with expectations built up on all sides for the opinion to be enacted. It’s a binary choice at this point because of the leak:
Threats and intimidation worked to unduly influence the decision
OR
The CT members refuse to be bullied
It isn’t fair but that’s the hand the CT has. If they don’t deliver the decision largely unchanged they will be viewed as allowing themselves to be compromised.
IMO, the Court had a window to regain the control of the circumstances and thwart the impact of the leak by immediately releasing the decision or at least giving a current headcount or some level of insight. By not doing so they have allowed themselves to be manipulated into either delivering a reversal of Roe, if they don’t they will be perceived as having caved to pressure. That perception makes the members continued service potentially untenable. Depending upon the state of the Senate in 2025 it is not impossible given the unique circumstances here that a realistic attempt to remove one or more Justices via impeachment who are viewed as allowing themselves to be bullied if they don’t deliver.
With McConnell running the Senate and McCarthy running the House? PLEASE!
McConnell is 79, lets face facts he might not even be alive in 2025. Plus more Senators that he doesn’t have in his pocket are being elected. McCarthy will need to prove himself as an effective Speaker in the next Congress to retain his position in 2025. He will need to demonstrate a ruthlessness that I don’t think he possesses or voters will be telling their rep to change leaders.
I for one am eternally grateful for McConnell. Why? “Supreme Court Justice Merrick Garland”
McConnell and McCarthy are already losing big to MAGA in primary season. The last thing they need is to give Trump yet another big club to bash them with on the way to November.
The Dems tried to stir up outrage in a desperate attempt to come up with even one issue to campaign on. It had zero effect in Ohio as Dem voters didn’t show up. America is okay with this repeal. The Antifa crowd organizing everything was even running ads offering to pay people to show up and protest at the conservative judges homes. This issue is going to peter out pretty soon and we will be back with “It’s the economy stupid!” and everything else the Swamp wrecked. We are winning!
>> Yeah, I don’t see how leaking the (draft) opinion ultimately helps the leftist side
Yes, but lefties are stupid that way
1: It was leaked to the left wing rag Politico
2: All the big lefties are siding with the Leaker
The Politico writers believe they know who leaked to them, and that person is a Leftie. And they let other Lefties know that
So it almost assuredly was leaked by the Left
Every one of those 6 SCOTUS members knows that if the Alito opinion doesn’t come out as the majority and controlling opinion, then they’ve painted a target on their backs from now to the end of time.
So I agree with you, CommoChief. Even if the Alito draft didn’t have 5 votes Sunday, it does now. Because caving now would be literal, actual, suicide
If Monday the decision was released and it was to uphold the Mississippi case but not overturn Roe, then this would be viewed as a major victory on the left.
Possibly the point of the leak was to take the sting out of announcing the Mississippi law upheld.
All this worrying about how each justices’ final decision “looks” in light of the leak should be irrelevant to all of them. They should make the same decision they would have made, based on their sense of the legal merits, regardless of how it looks politically. To do otherwise would be craven and cowardly.
The pro-abortion activists should be hammering their elected representatives to pass pro-abortion legislation, not try to intimidate the judiciary. These folks seem to have lost all sense of the meaning of the rule of law and representative democracy.
The election is six months away. Might as well be a million years. Energy from this leak will be long gone.
Every day under Obama in his third term is like a decade, considering the speed of the destruction of everything we have held sacred.
I don’t know. The George Floyd fires burned long and hot. If this ignites it may burn well into election season.
Abortion is their religion. They will not stop. What the heck will they do if they can’t murder their babies???
Gay sex doesn’t make babies, does it? There is a reason they have such a transgender craze. They knew Roe was going to be overturned.
Can’t see how first off this isn’t a major crime, stealing court documents and running to the press to possibly pressure one judge to change opinion.
The longer the ruling ( assume this was going to be one of those last day verdicts as they run away for vacation) the more time for this leak to work yet bet that’s what will happen.
Too many coincidences with chummy Leftists in this story to be a conservative leak.
“At some point we will know who the leaker was “..Nope, unless it will embarrass a conservative justice
It is beyond time to perform a bunch of late-term abortions.
Start with Schumer.
One other possibility: This was leaked to galvanize the Left’s voting base and avert what was shaping up to be a monstrous wipeout in November. Would be nothing to promise some clerk a visible pathway to a federal bench or lucrative corporate job with a woke company.
Let’s put all of the clerks under oath search their personal and taxpayer paid for phones and computers and find out who leaked and push Politico for the source of the leak That is the best way to find out and a relatively easy investigation
I hate to disagree with someone I admire as much as Prof. Jacobson, but we know there are five votes to overturn Roe because they signed Alito’s draft opinion, and according to Politico, those five votes are there this week. So, if the final opinion comes down with upholding the Mississippi law, and Roe at the same time, I do not see how it can be interpreted as anything other than a defeat, which was part of the leaker’s motivation, not the opinion, whatever it turns out to be, but it is spun by the press.
It would also mean that this will continue to happen over and over again in the future.
Correct. It stops if we make it ineffective. It takes courage but this country wasn’t founded by limp-wristed cowards.
While ascertaining motive is always difficult when the subject matter is as complex as the leak of Justice Alito’s proposed opinion on the challenge to the Mississippi law regulating abortion in that state, it is typically useful to focus some attention on cui bono.
In this instance there is additional evidence that can be considered when trying to figure out what the opponents to reform of the law about who can regulate abortion. There is every reason to believe that progressive political activists were aware of the Politico story before it went public. Progressive activists were ready with their typically incendiary comments; fund raisers were ready with their appeals for financial support; and Democratic candidates and their media based agents were fully prepared to make every effort to make this the issue of the upcoming 2022 election, sidetracking such issues as inflation, open borders, rising criminal activity, etc. Democrats know that their loss of support among highly “educated” suburban women and political independents threatens the progressive with a disastrous 2022 election result.
I suspect that the leak had more to do with the upcoming election than with an attempt to turn the court to make a decision that it was otherwise going to make. Political activity has no limits. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, “Winning is not everything, it is the only thing.” If government processes are negatively impact, well that is just too bad because holding on to power in the only thing.
What if the leaker is the “Chief Wobbler” John Roberts? It would be in character for him to blow up a victory for conservatives. The leak gives the left two things:
(1) time before the end of this Congress to try to pass legislation to replace Roe, and
(2) the opportunity to open-source the search for a stronger dissent, to try to push a member of the majority out. Of course it also open-sources the search for even stronger concurrences, but when you’re losing the chess game, you throw over the table and see if you get lucky.
No way. He is too much of an institutionalist and a realist. Most likely, when the actual decision comes out, he will join it.
The other likely scenario is that of a Daniel Ellsberg personality willing to throw away their career to destroy the Court on the altar of the false gods of reproductive freedom That person has non legal job offers book deals and media rights and royalties ready
We will soon find if Commiecrat THUGS cast the deciding vote. If so, the Court has already been packed.
No, it’s not a viable alternate. If the Court overturns Roe the Democrats will have more of a long game issue in terms of both Senate races and packing the Court to reverse the decision.
Plus… abortion is a revenue stream, something that they will not give up in exchange for a short-term campaign fundraising issue.
May 16 is their next scheduled day to announce orders and decisions. Will they have the final version ready by then?
Clarence Thomas has been smiling a lot the last few days. I wonder if he’s the one that release this and let everybody draw wrong conclusions? Might they be in for a shock?
He is writing the New York Rifle and Pistol decision. This will certainly take significant political heat of that.
I posited something along this line of reasoning earlier in the week. My take is that it galvanizes the base on the left, but a decision in June (either a full overturn or a victory for Mississippi with Rowe sort of intact). What this release does do is fire up the base for fundraising while the primaries are still going, and any primary money can be rolled up for the general, but the money doesn’t count against limits towards the general.
Except it didn’t fire up fundraising
In the 24 hours after RBG died Act Blue got > $30 million
In the 24 hours after this came out they got $9 million
Any clerk who lies under oath in the course of an investigation has committed a Federal felony
If we are going to do crazy speculation here why not go full monty? For example, maybe Roberts leaked the draft in order to defuse the actual decision that affirms Mississippi’s law without overturning Roe.
Roe gets the axe in the Dobbs case in an opinion that notes 93% of the abortions in this country are first trimester, upholding the Mississippi statute (fifteen weeks). No point in screwing around with a decision that replaces Casey’s “undue burden” test (whatever that means) with a rational basis test while leaving Roe’s “central holding” (again, whatever that means) in place. The fences that went up around the Supreme Court and protests at justices’ homes are a preview of what will happen every time Roe is still on the docket. While the Chief’s fondness for incremental change for the sake of the institution passes the red-face test, ducking the big question with a narrow ruling serves no purpose in the current environment.
Time to rip off the bandage and get it over.
Lawyers have infected the law with far too many penumbras; it is time to start cleaning them out.
My favorite theory is that the leak was from the right to prevent Roberts from joining the five and assigning writing the opinion to himself to change its implications.
I think this is the most likely explanation. It appears that in conference Roberts had voted with the minority. Under the usual way of doing things, it thus fell to the most senior justice in the majority to write the opinion himself or to assign which other justice in the majority would write the draft opinion for circulation. That would mean Thomas either writing or assigning, and so it was that he assigned it to Alito, and here we are.
But if Roberts switched his vote to join the majority, then as chief justice it would be his choice to write the majority opinion or assign it. Knowing how reluctant he is to go against precedents, he’d have likely come up with a result that upheld the Mississippi law but did not overrule Roe; the Alito opinion would become concurrrences by the others in the majority but with much less impact.
You are forgetting Texas SB 8
The ONLY reason not to enjoin SB 8 was because they were planning on nuking Roe and Casey. That vote was 5 – 1 – 3, with Roberts saying “it might be a legit law, but we should enjoin it until we can hear the whole case”, and the 3 saying “bad law, no biscuit!”
But the other 5 said “we’re not going to stop putting all Texas abortion providers under the threat that if we nuke Roe, they’re going to get sued out of business if they did any post-8 weeks abortions between now and the release of our ruling”
They wouldn’t have said that if they weren’t going to nuke Roe and Casey.
Now, it could be that Roberts bullied someone into changing his / her mind. But I guarantee you that post oral arguments, there were at least 5 votes to nuke Roe
Occam’s Razor. It was a rabid Marxist
I motives guessing game is kinda sorta fun, but no one can know. At least not at this point.
It was a first draft, and I do hope it’s re-written in a way that doesn’t eviscerate 60 years of privacy rulings. I readily acknowledge that Roe, and especially Casey, were messes. But that draft goes far past where it had to. They should ditch Casey and set a number. Mississippi’s 15 weeks is reasonable to me, and I think to most Americans.
I realize I’m commenting on a conservative blog. I usually support the conservative positions, but this is something of a departure. Very few Americans want a total ban, and very few Americans support the hyper-permissive statutes in the blue states. If the Supremes simply said “It’s gonna be 15 weeks,” everyone can return to bashing Joe Xiden.
The draft doesn’t throw out all the privacy rulings from Griswold v Connecticut forward, but the legal reasons in that draft oils up the slope. It’s not paranoid to imagine what’s next. It’s quite rare for me to find myself agreeing with Democrats these days, given what they’ve done to drive that car off of the left side of the road, but there are some calmer voices that ought to be listened to.
https://theliberalpatriot.substack.com/p/america-needs-a-leave-people-alone?s=r
Mississippi yes, Roe no was my first thought when this was leaked.
The problem is, SCOTUS needs to do this now rather than later.
If they wait too long and things simmer down and the draft is THE opinion, then the streets blow up all over again.
It’s just so unnecessary. An abortion ban won’t be tenable in practice. Not when half of the abortions are drug-induced. Come on, this country (including my rural county, and the big cities) can’t stop fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, meth, you name it. But they’ll stop RU-486. Oh yeah, conservatives. And here we all think it’s the “progressives” uniquely in thrall to magical thinking?
This is a warning bell in the night, regardless of what you think of abortion. Reminds me a whole lot of Mexico, which strictly bans the firearms that are everywhere down there, as a Latino acquaintance told me in detail yesterday afternoon. Stopped by the federales because he was driving a fancy car. They suspected that he might be with a cartel, so they searched for an hour.
One thing led to another, and pretty soon he was showing them his gun. Long and friendly discussion, and the federales told him that he was the sort of person who they think ought to be trusted carrying a gun. Which is illegal there.
This is what you want here? Not me! The laws should be grounded in reality and realism, not magical thinking, caprice, animus, hypocrisy, and phony righteousness. Yes, those are ever present, because we are fallible human beings. Still, a total ban on abortion? (Six weeks is close enough, and some states will go further than that.) Pay $10,000 bounties? What in hell are people smoking?
Yammer all you want about leaks and motives. Congrats for focusing on the least important aspect of any of this. Congrats for having a rock fight inside a glass house. Look, children, I respect the pro-life side enough to be fine with a reasonable time limit, like Mississippi’s, as long as it allows exceptions for rape, incest, life and health of the mother, and selective reduction associated with in vitro fertilization, which by the way is why I have one nephew and one niece.
There are principles, and there are talking points. How can you distinguish them? Here’s how: If they apply only to the other guys, they are talking points. I’m seeing lots of talking points. Hell, one of my own brothers, a Massachusetts liberal, texted me a meme about the NRA being the real killers of children. I sent a frosty reply. Consider this a frosty post.
Is this how our country dies, by a thousand stupidities coming from everywhere?
IMO, the populist right, tea party, MAGA however described should be working towards the goal of a reinvigorated Federalism. I fear that some on the right will seek to impose a national policy on abortion. Other than removing Federal funding for abortion or entities that perform abortions this is stupid.
Assuming that the (draft) opinion becomes reality then we need to take the win and go home. Let each State decide how to craft its own stance on abortion and then people can vote with their feet to move to State that reflects their views or they can stay put and do the heavy political lifting to get their policy preferences enacted in that State.
I don’t think CommoChief and I agree on much, but CC put his proverbial ‘finger’ on the issue:
If you really, sincerely believe that a first-trimester abortion is infanticide, how can you countenance it anywhere in your country, even if it’s not happening in your own backyard?
You can’t, in short.
So, you’ve got to push for a national ban, I would think.
Flashback:
“We now need to codify Roe v. Wade, which will actually increase the protections in New York. God forbid they do what they intend to do. I want to get it done before the Supreme Court does that because I don’t want any gaps in a woman’s right to protection. We have a better legal case when the Supreme Court acts because I WILL SUE when the Supreme Court acts,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement, according to Rochester TV station WHEC.”
— Mr. Cuomo is currently practicing Constitution Law at the Law Offices of Behar & Goldberg, LLC.
We are governed by a cancer.
Roe has already been shown as the leftist-results oriented, bogus reasoning it is by the SCOTUS itself! In Casey the opinion admitted Roe was probably wrongly decided, but went on to claim reliance on Roe and the court’s reputation required letting it stand. It was as if SCOTUS had declared itself a party to the case and ruled in its own favor. The real problem with “splitting the baby” is bedrock American political values: governments are established to protect LIFE, liberty, property, and a host of other rights (all lumped together with property as “the pursuit of happiness”). If leftists had the courage of their convictions, they wouldn’t hide behind euphemisms like “women’s healthcare” or “reproductive rights.” They would simply admit they support baby killing and start the “debate” from there.
“…preferring in the interest of the Court to dismember it limb by limb.”
Wow, that just buried the needle on the old irony meter…