Protesters belt out celebratory chant as they gobble down ‘abortion pills’, and totally miss the mark

Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE

While the U.S. Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments on a major abortion case, pro-abortion demonstrators outside triumphantly swallowed what they apparently claimed were pills often prescribed to terminate a pregnancy.

The presumably pro-Roe v. Wade trio stood in front of a banner that read “We are taking abortion pills forever” and led supporters in a pro-pill chant. It’s possible, however, that this was just a form of performance art, and that they were downing harmless tablets of some kind.

The protesters assembled as the high court was listening to legal arguments Wednesday on both sides of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to determine the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks and that, at least within that state, imposes limits on the landmark 1973 Roe decision that found a privacy right up to the third trimester.

Contrary to the corporate media narrative, not every American seems to fit squarely in the pro-life or pro-choice camp. Reports and polls show that many are understandably conflicted about this very sensitive and complex personal issue.

“Today, the country remains deeply divided. Polls show strong support for Roe in principle but also support for limiting it,” fair-minded liberal law professor and pundit Jonathan Turley asserted.

In an interesting footnote to history, the “my body, my choice” cohort, particularly among the Democrats, in general, seems to have abandoned that philosophy completely when it comes to COVID-19 vax mandates.

In another interesting footnote, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, even as she is celebrated for championing women’s rights, questioned to some degree the wide-ranging scope of Roe that overrode all state laws in effect at that time.

“A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day…might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy,” Ginsburg said in a December 1992 lecture at New York University.

“Indeed, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a critic of Roe, seeing it as too sweeping in supplanting state laws. She later blamed the case for reversing the trend toward more pro-choice states,” Turley recalled.

“Pro-choice advocates hope Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh can again be lured to the center to vote with the three liberal justices. Arguments over ‘super precedent’ may have traction with Roberts, who is known as an institutionalist and incrementalist, uneasy about the court ordering transformative changes in society. Reversing Roe is the ultimate sticker-shock moment for Roberts,” the George Washington University Law School professor explained.

Last term, SCOTUS, which has a 6-3 conservative majority depending on how conservative is defined, issued a flurry of 9-0 decisions which may reflect Roberts’ tendency for the above-mentioned incrementalism, and that may or may not play out in a potential narrow ruling in Dobbs.

Turley describes the latter as “the most consequential abortion case in decades,” unlike previous overhyped cases that the abortion-on-demand-supporting media presented as apocalyptical.

Dobbs has everything that you would need for a Roe-killing case. That does not mean the court will do so, but it could substantially reduce Roe’s hold over states. The more interesting question is not whether Roe will go but whether ‘viability’ is still a viable basis for limiting states on abortion legislation,” he said.

Reacting to the above video, Twitter commenters implied that the activists were engaging in unseemly behavior that trivializes an extremely serious issue. Here is a sampling:

Robert Jonathan

Comments

Latest Articles