What Does the Future Hold?

One year ago the draft Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked. The Dobbs leak occurred on May 2, 2022, and spurred illegal protesting. Protesters sought to influence the decisions of the justices, attack Catholic churches and pro-life pregnancy centers, and assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The Department of Justice is slow in prosecuting all the illegal acts. Justice Samuel Alito believes that he knows who the leaker is, but no one has been identified. I wonder when the leaker will be prosecuted as well as when the Department of Justice will provide equal protection before the law and stop favoring Left Wing supporters. 

When Will the Abortion Ruling Come Out?

            The Supreme Court ruling in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is imminent. The decision could be announced any day and will be given some time before mid-July. Whatever the ruling, there will be a big change in America. Angry pro-abortion protesters have been marching at the homes of conservative Justices since the possible decision was leaked on May 2, 2022.

One deranged protester traveled from California to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh but gave himself up when he saw U.S. marshals guarding the Kavanaugh home.

            Douglas Blair posted an article that including numerous tweets showing preparations being made for protests around the Supreme Court building. 

            Dan Hart posted an article about the many protests and attacks that have taken place in the past six weeks. He quoted The Washington Stand as stating that there were “at least 41 separate incidents of violent attacks against churches, pro-life organizations, and pro-life property across the country since the May 2 leak.” The attacks were of a variety of “arson, vandalism, property theft, and property destruction.” 

These incidents do not include at least nine other occurrences of physical violence against pro-life advocates, threats of violence against churches, and illegal disruptions of church services that have unfolded within the same time frame.

In the same time period, there has been a single instance of violence against pro-abortion advocacy groups, in which a woman is suspected of committing arson at an abortion facility under construction on May 25 in Wyoming.

Despite the wide disparity in violent incidents between the two groups, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a “Terrorism Threat” advisory bulletin on June 7 that appeared to equate the amount of violent incidents from activists on both sides of the abortion issue. It stated, in part, “… individuals who advocate both for and against abortion have, on public forums, encouraged violence….”

            Equating fifty (41 + 9) attacks against pro-life advocates and “violence against churches, pro-life organizations, and pro-life property” with one instance of “violence against pro-abortion advocacy groups” is a giant act of dishonesty. Both types of violence are wrong, but why did the Department of Homeland Security color both types with the same brush?

            One of the reasons why the pro-abortion crowd continues to protest is that they do not face any obstruction for breaking laws. There is a federal law against protesting at the homes of federal judges and justices. Yet, the DOJ has not arrested any of the protesters marching around the homes of the justices. We need a Department of Justice that is apolitical that will treat Americans from all political sides equally.

What Will Happen after the Supreme Court Rules on Dobbs v. Jackson?

            Last fall, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and the justices will release their decision in a forthcoming ruling. A ruling in favor of Jackson Women’s Health Organization will be a win in the favor of abortion. A ruling in favor of Dobbs will be a win for unborn and newborn children.

            Opponents of abortion recognize that a ruling for Dobbs will not end the fight for the sanctity of life. A win in the court will mean a prolonged war with Big Tech censorship, a war in which the first battles have begun. Douglas Blair published an article with the following information.

Organizations standing for the sanctity of life are well aware of the uphill battle they face.

The prominent anti-abortion group Live Action had its content censored online long before the docket put the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion nationwide in the crosshairs.

In 2019, social media platform Pinterest added Live Action’s website to its blacklist of banned sites. The blacklisting meant users were unable to link to Live Action’s content or post it on Pinterest.

The Daily Signal reported that after Live Action attempted to appeal the ban, Pinterest took things a step further and permanently banned its account, claiming the organization violated Pinterest’s misinformation policies.

Andrew Moore, digital and creative director at pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, says his organization also has been hit by Big Tech censorship on several occasions….

The examples of Big Tech censorship of pro-life causes are innumerable. But what it all leads back to is that Big Tech is hostile to the anti-abortion movement and has openly thrown its considerable weight behind leftist pro-abortion causes.

That isn’t really shocking. It’s an open secret that platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter are run by leftists whose sensibilities align more with rabid pro-abortionists.

Where this is likely to become an issue is when pro-abortion activists and their kindred spirits in the Silicon Valley hubs of Big Tech see Roe pared back or even struck down by the high court. A ruling is expected in late June.

            Supporters of abortion are concerned with the possibility that Roe v. Wade will end when the ruling from the Supreme Court comes out. Leftists are preparing for battles with the pro-life crowd. One of those battles will be fought in any area where messages about abortion are posted. We can be sure that Big Tech will join in the battle if the Supreme Court hands decisions about abortion back to the States where it belongs constitutionally.

Will America Be Free from Abortion on Demand?

            The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns an abortion case currently resting with the justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices heard oral arguments in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case on Wednesday, and plenty of conservatives are optimistic that the justices will overturn Roe v. Wade. If Roe is overturned, it will end abortion on demand on a national basis. This case comes from a Mississippi law that would ban most abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy.

            The reason for the conservatives’ hope lies in the balance of the justices with five conservative justices, three liberal justices, and a Chief Justice that is mostly conservative but often becomes a swing vote. The hope also comes from the questions and statements made by the justices during the oral arguments.

            Virginia Allen at The Heritage Foundation interviewed Denise Harle, the senior attorney and director of the Center for Life at Alliance Defending Freedom today. Harle made clear her feeling of how the justices should decide: “I feel that the Supreme Court right now has a very clear, intellectually honest blueprint to overturn Roe v. Wade, restore the Constitution to its proper meaning and understanding, and return the issue of abortion back to the people of America.” 

            Allen asked Harle to explain the “big question” that the justices will consider when deciding this case. Harle explained that there are actually two big questions.

So, there were two big questions, basically. The bottom line really is whether to overturn Roe v. Wade. And that is huge. This is the first and best opportunity that the nation has seen to do that. And that was squarely at issue in all the discussions today. Beyond that, the questions the court was grappling with was of this viability standard.

So, just a little bit of legal background, Roe v. Wade, and then the case interpreting it, Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, set up essentially a viability role, which is that states cannot protect unborn children before the point of viability.

Now, in Roe v. Wade, 1973, that was a 24- to 28-week range. By the time of Casey, it was 23 to 24. Now, we see babies surviving at 21 or 22. So it’s a moving target, certainly not a constitutional basis.

And so, one of the biggest questions the justices were asking is, where does this come from? It’s not in the Constitution, what is the legal basis for it? And it seems arbitrary because a baby, what’s the difference between 15 and 21 weeks, for example?

And what was very interesting was that the abortion clinic advocate did not have an explanation or a justification, simply said that it’s a principled line and we followed it for 50 years, and so we should stick with it. And I think it was a very unsatisfying answer.

The advocate for the abortion clinic essentially said, “This is the precedent, and we should continue with it.” Harle explained that their answer presents “a problem for a couple of reasons.”

 One is that the Supreme Court in its cases has repeatedly affirmed that states do have an important interest in protecting what they’ve called vulnerable and innocent life from the moment of conception.

So the Supreme Court has actually said in multiple cases that states have important interests in protecting maternal health and unborn life from the outset of pregnancy. That is and has always been a bit of a conflict with Roe and Casey’s holdings.

The other piece of the puzzle today was this question of stare decisis, which is the Latin term for whether to just follow the precedent. And as several justices pointed out and the Mississippi solicitor general pointed out, the Supreme Court, when it has made an erroneous decision, fixes that decision—Brown v. Board of Education overruling Plessy v. Ferguson.

There are fantastic examples of where the Supreme Court was wrong. And the best thing to do is to correct it as soon as possible so that the Constitution is put back in its proper place in America.

This was the central argument put forth by Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart. He made the point that there is no explicit right to abortion written in the Constitution. Allen asked Harle how strong she thought this argument was, and Harle replied: “It was so strong, in fact, that the other side did not even dispute it. I did not hear anyone, including a liberal justice or the U.S. solicitor general or the abortion clinic attorney, attempt to argue that there is a right in the Constitution that secures abortion.”

Mississippi had a second part to their argument that was also powerful: “There’s no middle ground that the court can take without causing all kinds of new problems.” If there truly is no middle ground, Harle concluded that there are two options for the Supreme Court: “overturn Roe completely or continue to stay in this horrible mess” of abortion on demand.

So, what happens if Roe is overturned? According to Harle, the justices would say that “the Constitution is neutral on abortion. And if the Constitution is silent on abortion, then each state and the voters of each state can do what they want.” Harle considered this a “clean solution” to the problem and “the constitutionally correct solution.”

Another point brought out by Harle is that Chief Justice John Roberts “particularly seized on some of the facts about international law on abortion.” What are some of those facts? The United States is “one of only six nations in the entire world that allows abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy.” The Chief Justice pointed out that it is “an appalling policy” according to the international human rights consensus. Harle believes that “90% of countries limit abortions at 15 weeks,” which recognizes that “life is a fundamental human right.”

Much more information came out in the podcast, and you can link to it here. A crucial point is that the matter has not been decided, and a lot can happen between the oral arguments and the final decision. Please join me in praying for the justices that they will be inspired to make the decision that is right for America.

What Decision Will the Justices Make in Dobbs v. Jackson?

            The Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization today in an argument that lasted almost two hours. Dobbs challenges the constitutionality of the Gestational Age Act passed by Mississippi, which bans most abortions after gestation of 15 weeks.

            In their article published at The Daily Signal, Thomas Jipping and Sarah Parshall Perry at The Heritage Foundation listed the key takeaways from the case. They indicated that most of the argument today was a question of whether the court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were wrong and should be overturned. 

The validity of those precedents is on the line because the court in both decisions determined that any abortion ban prior to “viability” (when the unborn child can potentially live outside the womb) is unconstitutional. The Mississippi ban draws the line well before viability, generally understood to be at about 24 weeks.

            The court’s decision is not expected before June, and there are three ways that they could decide according to Jipping and Perry: (1) The court upholds Mississippi’s abortion ban by overruling Roe and Casey. (2) The justices reach the same result by narrowing or modifying – rather than overruling – those precedents. (3) The court strikes down the Mississippi ban by reaffirming Roe and Casey.

            Jipping and Perry stated that the justices “poured cold water” on option two when they “rejected as unworkable any ‘half measures’ that would substitute something else for the Roe-Casey standard.” It appears to be a “stay or go” decision about Roe and Casey. The court will use an “established … two-step processed for determining whether a precedent should be overruled.”

The first step is whether that precedent was wrongly decided. On that, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart’s opening words were that Roe and Casey “haunt our country” and have no foundation in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.

Significantly, neither Julie Rikelman, the attorney for the abortion clinic challenging the law, nor U. S. Solicitor General Elizabeth] Prelogar made much of an attempt to defend either case on its merits.

The second question is whether a wrongly decided precedent should be overruled, and the court has identified several factors or criteria to help answer that question.

            Jipping and Perry indicated that several justices spoke out on the second question. The comments by the justices, as reported by Jipping and Perry, are interesting and may indicate how the individual justices will vote on the decision.

·         Breyer argued that the court should be “more unwilling” to overrule what he called “watershed” precedents, so that the public does not think the justices are simply responding to political pressure.

He might have been implicitly conceding that Roe and Casey could not survive application of the court’s traditional analysis.

·         Chief Justice John Roberts observed [that] Breyer’s position actually suggests that the more egregiously wrong a precedent is, the more the court should resist overruling it.

·         Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that some of the court’s most significant decisions had themselves overruled precedents, citing an extensive list of decisions that included Miranda v. Arizona, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges.

His citations also included Brown v. Board of Education, which effectively overruled the “separate but equal” principle established by Plessy v. Ferguson.

·         Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted that states now have “safe haven laws that allow mothers to relinquish newborn babies to hospitals or other designated safe havens without criminal prosecution within a few days of delivery instead of abandoning them.

Barrett suggested that, by separating pregnancy form parenthood, safe haven laws may diminish what the Supreme Court in Roe called the “detriment” facing women of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Barrett also asked whether upholding the Mississippi abortion ban would necessarily raise questions about the validity of other Supreme Court precedents.

·         Justice Sonia Sotomayor tried to argue that it is impossible to know if an unborn child’s reaction to physical stimuli shows that he or she feels pain….

She might have been unaware of the current research on the subject, which shows that unborn children may indeed feel pain at as early as 12 weeks.

            Jipping and Perry suggested that the “most important question in this case concerns the proper setting for all of these questions, debates, issues, values, and arguments: Is it the legislature or the judiciary?” Another question would be, is abortion a state or federal issue?

            The Constitution left all matters in the hands of the “American people and their elected representatives” unless they are clearly stated in the Constitution as being the responsibility of the federal government. Dobbs v. Jackson is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to right the constitutional wrongs made in Roe and Casey. They should overrule Roe and Casey and send the question of abortion back to the states where it belongs.

            There is little doubt that overturning Roe and Casey will cause liberals to melt. We can expect that they will send out the BLM (burn, loot, and murder) to riot in the streets and make life miserable for the people. However, if America does not right this wrong and protect the unborn when it is given the opportunity to do so, God will hold Americans responsible. I pray that the justices will be courageous and do the right thing – no matter what!