One of the most controversial rulings made by the current iteration of the U.S. Supreme Court was its decision reversing the abortion precedent in Roe v. Wade.
Legally, this was the right ruling, and it should have been done years ago.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, an appointee of Donald Trump, has recently been opening up more about that ruling.
When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the entire left lost its collective mind.
This was a legally flawed opinion from the outset, a fact into which I will delve deeper in just a bit, but the reaction from the left was more twisted than a Philadelphia soft pretzel.
Dems acted as though abortion had been outlawed, but the decision merely kicked the question of legality back to individual states.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the case, claiming that the previous ruling by the Court "must be overruled" because it was "egregiously wrong," the arguments "exceptionally weak" and so "damaging" that they amounted to "an abuse of judicial authority."
While I did not support her ideology, I have no problem saying that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was one of the most brilliant legal minds of our time.
What many people do not realize is that Ginsburg had predicted that Roe v. Wade would fall many years ago.
During a 2013 appearance at the University of Chicago Law School, Ginsburg pointed out the critical flaw in the case, stating, “Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it? It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”
She actually blamed that decision for stopping all the momentum for abortion rights at the time. Ginsburg knew that at some point, this ruling would be overturned because the basis of the case literally had nothing at all to do with a woman’s right to abortion.
The case that was presented to the Court that resulted in the reversal of Roe v. Wade was Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, with Barrett recently defending the ruling.
She stated, "Dobbs did not render abortion illegal. Dobbs did not say anything about whether abortion is immoral. Dobbs said that these are questions that are left to the states. And all of these kinds of questions – decisions that you mention that require medical judgments -- are not ones that our Constitution connects to the courts, you know, to decide how far into pregnancy the right of abortion might extend.”
Barrett continued, “You know, the court was in the business of drawing a lot of those lines before, and what Dobbs says is that those calls are properly left to the democratic process. And the states have been working those out. There's been a lot of legislative activity and a lot of state constitutional activity since the decision in Dobbs was rendered.”
She hit the nail on the head, and the only thing I would like to see changed is for legislators to put the actual laws to voters in ballot referendums. I do not like seeing politicians mandate these laws when they are clearly not paying attention to what voters want on this particular subject. Put it on the ballot and let the voters decide the law rather than allowing politicians to push their personal agendas.
