There may be no better indication of the jurisprudential soundness of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization than the intellectual poverty of the response from its opponents.
Why won’t the Roe Vs Wade reversal matter in the mid-terms as much as some folks think?
The reaction to the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health has been predictably vitriolic and often full of distortions. The Justices didn’t ban abortion; they said there is no constitutional right to abortion and left it to the states to decide. The majority also did not set up other rights to disappear; they explicitly said abortion is unique.
The nation when Roe v. Wade was enacted was very different than the nation today. This is why setting laws and policies to ensure the safety and well-being of everyone are so difficult.
When lawyer Sarah Weddington stood up in the Supreme Court on Oct. 11, 1972, to present the pro-abortion argument in the case of Roe v. Wade, she was legalistically careful in the language she used to describe whom exactly an abortion aborted.
She avoided normal human terms like “unborn child” or “baby” — and, most importantly, “person.”
Hope is not a method
Another Devil’s advocate © 2021. All rights reserved.