OPINION: This article contains commentary which may reflect the author's opinion
The Supreme Court ruling on the fate of Roe v Wade is unfolding.
The SCOTUS has been deliberating the constitutionality of the 1973 law amid unprecedented events.
In early May, a draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked to Politico and it set off a firestorm on social media, Conservative Brief reports.
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
“We, therefore, hold the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives,” Alito writes in the document, labeled the “Opinion of the Court.”
Soon after Alito’s draft majority opinion leaked, it’s assumed there were at least 5 votes in favor of overturning Roe v Wade, leaving state legislators to weigh their own abortion policies, Conservative Brief continued.
The leak itself was unprecedented and protests at the private homes of SCOTUS judges as well as threats have not happened before during a deliberation.
The leak is being taken very seriously by the SCOTUS.
The nation’s highest court has taken a slew of actions since the leak, including requiring law clerks to provide cell phone records and sign affidavits, according to CNN.
“Some clerks are apparently so alarmed over the moves, particularly the sudden requests for private cell data, that they have begun exploring whether to hire outside counsel. The court’s moves are unprecedented and the most striking development to date in the investigation into who might have provided Politico with the draft opinion it published on May 2,” CNN reported.
“The probe has intensified the already high tensions at the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority is poised to roll back a half-century of abortion rights and privacy protections. Chief Justice John Roberts met with law clerks as a group after the breach, CNN has learned, but it is not known whether any systematic individual interviews have occurred,” the report added.
But the court seems to be close to a ruling in the case, and one legal expert says he sees the direction of the SCOTUS opinion.
Oklahoma Republican Attorney General John O’Connor believes there’s a “strong possibility” that the Supreme Court will overturn the landmark abortion decision, Conservative Brief reports.
During an interview with Breitbart News, O’Connor spoke about the looming Supreme Court ruling on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the highly anticipated abortion case that could overrule Roe v. Wade.
“Because that violence of abortion really has cost us 60 million-plus American lives,” O’Connor said.
“Because that violence of abortion really has cost us 60 million-plus American May, an unknown source leaked a Supreme Court draft opinion related to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case centered around Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban, and the most significant challenge to Roe v. Wade in decades. The leaked draft indicates the court could overturn its Roe v. Wade decision declaring abortion a protected right under the United States Constitution. Boyle noted that the Supreme Court’s official decision could come out as soon as next week,” O’Connor added.
If the Supreme Court finds there is no right to abortion in the Constitution, “that will then turn the decision back to the people and their elected state legislatures,” O’Connor said, adding that abortion has been a “national sin” before and since the 1973 ruling.
“It was a ridiculous decision. It was not a scholarly legal opinion. It was a political popularity contest. We’ve got to keep going until we’ve determined that abortion is the taking of a life and is not legal in America,” O’Connor continued. “And you know what, I think we can find other solutions that don’t involve the taking of a life in a crisis pregnancy.”
“And so then privacy grew to mean the right of the woman over her own body. What the U.S. Supreme Court failed to do — they said that the unborn child is human and the unborn child is alive, but the Constitution only protects persons. So they did some parsing of words…they played lawyer to the extreme and said that an alive human in the mother’s womb is not a person,” he said.
O’Connor continued: “And it’s flawed because even in our U.S. environmental laws, if the law regarding endangered species is protecting a minnow, then the egg of that minnow is protected to the same degree that a mature adult minnow is protected. Also in our criminal law in the U.S., if you run a red light and you hit a lady in a van and she’s pregnant, you can be charged with two manslaughters. So really, they had to play a massive game of mental twister to treat the child in utero different from endangered animal species and different from an entire body of criminal law.”