On Dec. 1 the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments on the Dobbs Vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. To the untrained eye, this may appear as a boring legal case with two generic WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) last names, but in reality, the impact is game-changing. To fill the reader in, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization is suing the state of Mississippi following the state’s banning of all abortions after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. It’s no coincidence that many conservative states have recently passed abortion restrictions.
The reason why is because of President Donald Trump’s appointment of three relatively conservative Justices onto the Supreme Court. These appointments were all vetted and prescreened by the federalist society—a legal advocacy group that propels a strict interpretation of the constitution. This means rulings predicated on a looser interpretation of the constitution are up on the chopping block, including Roe vs. Wade.
Before I give more of my own opinion on what the Supreme Court should do, I will first detail the three likely scenarios on the Supreme Court’s ruling. The most likely scenario I would give a 65 percent chance to, is the Supreme Court striking down Roe vs. Wade and essentially giving the states the right to make their own abortion law. The second most likely scenario I would give a 30 percent chance to is Roe vs Wade staying the same and the Mississippi law being struck down by the court. The last, and less likely scenario, which is a very implausible ruling, is the unborn child being ruled as a person by the court, therefore banning abortion nationwide.
Now, what should the Supreme Court do? Simple. The Court should read the Constitution to see if abortion is specifically referenced and, if not, then neither prohibit nor inhibit abortion. After reading the Constitution, I can tell you that abortion is never referenced. So, why then, was Roe vs. Wade decided how it was? The answer? Simple. Progressive justice—realizing that abortion, if held on a public referendum in 1973, in all likelihood, wouldn’t have passed. The progressive left chose the Court as a vehicle to impose its agenda, knowing that the public would not vote for it. This upset a system of checks and balances in Madison’s Constitution and stripped the Congress of its legislative powers, all in the pursuit of political partnership.
Yet, all of the sudden, the left is outraged that their silent coup over the American system is being challenged. The alarm bells are sounding off as the mainstream media understands that the jig is up. All week, the same song has been sung of Supreme Court partnership on the rise. Yet the reality of a revolutionary activist court imposing abortion on people in 1973 who were militantly opposed, is never told. It’s clear that this hypocrisy of the Court losing credibility has already occurred. The very moment, whether you agree or not with the principle of Roe vs. Wade, that the Supreme Court found the right to an abortion somewhere in the constitution, the Supreme Court’s credibility gasped its last breath. Now it appears that the blue judicial wave of the Warren court is about to be encapsulated by the red tide of the Roberts court.