Supreme justice: Overturning Roe would flood court with 'stench'

Overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that during its lifespan of nearly 50 years has allowed in America a literally unlimited “right” to abortion,  would flood the Supreme Court with “stench,” a pro-abortion justice complained on Wednesday.

The high court heard arguments on a Mississippi law that calls for a 15-week limit to abortions, instead of the vague “viability” standard that has been accepted for years, usually calculated to be about 24 weeks.

The lower limit actually would move the U.S. away from alignment with repressive nations like China and North Korea, which also use that standard, and into step with much of the rest of the civilized world.

Pro-life advocates openly have called for the court to overturn the flawed Roe ruling, which even its author, Harry Blackman, confessed was based on unknown factors.

He admitted, in the opinion, that “if this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] amendment.”

A report from Fox News noted that pro-abortion advocates on the high court bench raised numerous unrelated arguments in the hearing on Mississippi’s case.

Sotomayor’s was the “political ‘stench’ that may linger if the court overturns Roe,” the report said.

Sonia Sotomayor
Sonia Sotomayor

“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don’t see how it is possible,” she complained.

Of course the U.S. Supreme Court routinely overturns previous rulings when it determines, based on evidence and information, that they were decided wrongly.

Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, arguing for the lower abortion limit, pointed out the failing of her argument with a single statement: “I think the concern about appearing political makes it absolutely imperative that the court reach a decision well-grounded in the Constitution.”

The Constitution does not mention abortion.

Sotomayor also charged that the Mississippi state argument in favor of its law is nothing but a matter of faith, which is actually protected in the Constitution’s First Amendment.

“How is your interest anything but a religious view?” Sotomayor charged. “The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It’s still debated in religions. So when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that’s a religious view, isn’t it?”

Stewart explained those are reasons “to return this to the people because the people should get to debate these hard issues.”

If Roe is overturned, regulation of abortion would be the responsibility of states.

Sotomayor also argued for her belief about the pain that an unborn baby can feel.

Another justice who has advocated for abortion in the past, Stephen Breyer, suggested that perhaps Roe should remain the law simply because it was decided that way at the time.

The principle that the court generally avoids reversing its own precedents is called “stare decisis.”

Breyer said. “They say it’s a rare. They call it a watershed. Why? Because the country is divided, because feelings are running high and yet the country, for better or for worse, decided to resolve their differences by this court, laying down a constitutional principle in this case.”

But Stewart said Roe needs to be overturned because it is extraordinarily wrong.

A commentary by the Washington Examiner pointed out that another abortion supporter on the high court, the late Ruth Ginsburg, had called Roe “difficult to justify.”

“Roe removed the issue of abortion from the democratic process. It also created a new right to kill one’s baby in utero. In deciding Roe, Justice Harry Blackmun and the Roe court set out to create a new version of women’s equality that the original suffragists would have soundly rejected. They did not care what sort of shoddy reasoning they needed to get there, and it really shows,” the commentary said.

The commentary explained, “Polls show that most people, regardless of their position on abortion’s legality in principle, support reasonable restrictions such as the one Mississippi is defending. For example, 65% believe that abortion should be illegal after 12 weeks, i.e. after the first trimester, according to a new poll from the Associated Press . This is a typical poll result. If people had been allowed to vote on this issue since the 1970s, laws in states where abortion is legal would probably look a lot like Mississippi’s. That, in addition to the specious legal reasoning behind the original ruling, is a sufficient reason for abolishing Roe and letting the voters decide.”

Democrats, in fact, have gone to extremes to promotion abortion up to the point of birth, or even after.

It was Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam who infamously argued for infanticide in a radio interview several years ago.

He said if a child survived an abortion attempt, “it would be kept comfortable if that that’s what the mother desired” and then there would be a “discussion” between the doctor and mother about whether the child would be allowed to live.

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].


This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

Related Posts