Is the Supreme Court Ready to Overturn Roe v. Wade After 48 Years?

It is a true statement that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there a right to kill unborn babies. The concept isn’t even implied.

Seven justices on the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973 came up with a “right of privacy” in the Due Process clause —  previously unknown in the Constitution’s existence — for women to kill their babies for any reason in the first trimester, as long as the baby can’t live outside the womb. The government couldn’t bar abortion during the first trimester. Regulating began during the rest of the pregnancy.

Politico broke a story Monday that revealed a leaked draft of a high court opinion in which five justices voted to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case. In Casey, the court upheld Roe but allowed regulations during the first trimester and added an “undue burden” standard of review rather than strict scrutiny. A state’s abortion restriction would be unconstitutional if the purpose of the restriction is to place a “substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.”

In the draft opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

More from Fox News:

He notes that Americans hold “sharply conflicting views” on the subject. “Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman’s right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.”

The draft is unsigned, and the draft opinion itself doesn’t overturn Roe. It’s unknown whether any of the other justices intend to submit concurring or dissenting opinions. If the court overturns Roe and Casey, states can decide whether to legalize abortion or ban it.

The question now is who leaked the opinion, and whether the person will face legal consequences. The obvious purpose behind the leak is to create a backlash and to pressure one of the conservative justices to cave.

What do you think?

Do you like this post? Sign up for more!

Check Also

CURE Reports on The State of Black Progress LIVE on Monday — You’re Invited

The Center for Urban Renewal and Education (CURE) will release the second volume of its …


  1. Murder is defined as “the unlawful, premeditated killing of one human being by another.” Murder is unlawful killing—that is, killing that is done by the judgment of one human being against another, for personal reasons.

    The Bible condemns murder repeatedly as a characteristic of a wicked society (Deuteronomy 5:17; Isaiah 1:21; Hosea 4:2; Matthew 5:21).

    Stop abortion 0 it is murder.

  2. Growing possibility that no crime was committed in leaking document to press. No president cent over past 232 years to base arrest/prosecution. Only “bad form.”

    • Perhaps no crime, but it certainly was unethical – especially since the motive is likely to have been to sabotage the decision by firing up the pro-abort mob, and intimidate the Justices into keeping Roe in place.

      Whoever did it should be fired and disbarred.

      • Sounds like a “cyber crime.” Probably no provisions for that. They’ll have some now.

        • I’m sure that SCOTUS clerks – like most employees – have some sort of employee manual laying out their duties and obligations, and that it contains a confidentiality requirement.

          I remember serving on a jury, and we were strictly forbidden to discuss the case while it was in progress. And we all abided by that! It’s hard to believe that law clerks aren’t bound by that also – which means that whoever did this should suffer severe penalties.

          Even if the leaker was someone outside the Court’s staff, that person must have had a contact on the inside. Whether or not they used the Internet is immaterial.