Beware of Plan Bs: The White House Push to ‘Codify Roe’ Goes Far Beyond the Status Quo

Below is my column in The Hill on the call by the Biden White House and many in the media to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) in light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court not to enjoin the new abortion law in Texas. The WHPA is routinely described in the media as a “codification of Roe,” the description used by the White House and many Democratic sponsors. It is not. It is in fact what many pro-choice advocates have always wanted Roe to be but have been unsuccessful in establishing through the court system. There are legitimate issues raised by the bill but the sponsors should not hoodwink voters by claiming that this merely codifies the status quo of Roe.

Here is the column:

Nothing is more unnerving than a “Plan B.” The Donner Party Shortcut, the Iran-Contra Affair, the Jan. 6 rally-to-riot — all “Plan Bs.” When people don’t get what they want, they often have a default plan that is based on a mix of pure panic and impunity.

When the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that it would not enjoin the Texas abortion law, the White House immediately called for the Senate to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) to secure the rights currently guaranteed under the Constitution. While widely portrayed in the media as “codifying Roe v. Wade,” this legislation actually goes far beyond the current precedent of the Supreme Court and would effectively wipe out many state laws and state authority on abortion.

The outcry after the Court’s decision was captured in a dissent by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who decried the “madness” of allowing the Texas law to remain in effect pending lower court reviews; she even compared the Texas law to the conflicts leading to the Civil War.

Sotomayor encouraged advocates not to wait for any decision of the Court.  The justice recently called upon students to campaign against abortion laws in anticipation of abortion cases this term, declaring: “You know, I can’t change Texas’s law, but you can and everyone else who may or may not like it can go out there and be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don’t like.”

The surprise over the Supreme Court’s procedural decision is itself surprising. This result was precisely what some of us expected when the litigants asked for an injunction just weeks after these same justices rejected an injunction of the same law. Moreover, the justices agreed that the law could be challenged as a “pre-enforcement” action against some of the private parties.

The Court will now proceed to consider these issues in the pending case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Mississippi case that is likely to reframe or reverse Roe. Yet, many believe the Court will preserve Roe’s protection of a constitutional right to abortion while allowing states to exercise greater authority to legislate in the area, particularly during the “pre-viability period.”

So, why the push for Plan B before the Court rules? The reason is that the WHPA is not a simple codification but a potentially massive expansion of Roe and its successor case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey. It seeks to accomplish legislatively what could not be accomplished judicially for decades. Putting aside possible constitutional problems in effectively taking over the entire field of abortion rights from the states, the WHPA’s provisions read like a progressive wish-list based on pages of legislative “findings.” It declares the “violent legacy” of “restrictions on reproductive health, including abortion … [that] perpetuate systems of oppression, lack of bodily autonomy, white supremacy, and anti-Black racism.”

The WHPA — narrowly passed in the House, 218-211, on Sept. 24 — was actually proposed in 2013, long before either the Mississippi or Texas laws were enacted. It would wipe away the precedent following Roe where states did impose legislate conditions and limitations on abortions within the constitutional framework laid out by the Court. Since 1973, states have used that precedent to enact hundreds of laws on abortions.

There are legitimate objections to some of these laws. However, if Congress is going to preempt state laws, it should be honest with voters that this an expansion (rather than a codification) of the status quo of Roe.

The precedent under Roe and its successor cases bars states from imposing an undue burden on the right to an abortion, or laws that have “the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.” That can be stated in a couple lines. But the WHPA would superficially track constitutional language while adopting other undefined or sweeping terms.

It bars any limitation or requirement that “expressly, effectively, implicitly, or as implemented singles out” and “impedes access to” abortion. Any state law would need to show — by clear and convincing evidence — that it “significantly advances the safety of abortion services or the health of patients,” and that such safety “cannot be advanced by a less restrictive alternative measure.”

Conversely, a law can “impede” abortion rights under seven broad standards — including any conditions that are “reasonably likely to directly or indirectly increase the cost of providing … or obtaining abortion services (including costs associated with travel, childcare, or time off work),” that “deters some patients.” It also impedes the right if it causes “a trip to the offices of a health care provider that would not otherwise be required.”

Under the WHPA, no law could countermand a health-care provider who believes “continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” The term “health” is not defined and such terms are required to be “liberally construed” under the law. The law could be read as preempting certain late term abortion laws and other limits.

The WHPA could make it more difficult to establish waiting periods under current state laws. Laws requiring the involvement of licensed physicians could be struck down, too, since the key “health care provider” definition includes a “certified nurse-midwife, nurse practitioner, and physician assistant.”

These are important issues that are worthy of debate. Indeed, they are the types of definitions, procedures and standards that have resulted in different approaches among the states under the current post-Roe precedent — laws that could be preempted under the WHPA.

The calls to “codify Roe” with the WHPA falsely suggest that this law merely preserves the status quo. It does not. However, the drafters are aware that many pro-choice voters also support existing bans on late-term abortions and other limitations. A recent poll shows that, while a strong majority opposes overturning Roe, a greater number of respondents (37 percent) supported the 15-week limit in Dobbs than opposed it (32 percent). Today’s array of state laws reflects those different views, which could be largely set aside by the WHPA — causing even greater political divisions in the country.

In that sense, the WHPA would capture one aspect of Roe: The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously criticized Roe as a “heavy-handed judicial intervention … difficult to justify.” Congress could now replace Roe with an even heavier-handed legislative intervention.

Justice Sotomayor warned that, by not enjoining the Texas law, “I doubt the Court, let alone the country, is prepared for [the consequences].” The same may be true about this “Plan B.”

112 thoughts on “Beware of Plan Bs: The White House Push to ‘Codify Roe’ Goes Far Beyond the Status Quo”

  1. Professor Turley Writes:

    “The WHPA could make it more difficult to establish waiting periods under current state laws”.
    ………………………………………………………………..

    Waiting periods serve no medical purpose whatsoever. They are what is known as ‘TRAP laws’ ( Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers). Their entire purpose is, quite literally, to harass women seeking abortions. The idea is to drive up the costs of abortions so that women have to take an extra day-off from work or school.

    This burden is a particular hardship for women in less populated areas who must travel long distances to abortion providers. In addition to taking an extra day-off from work or school, they might also have to pay for lodging in the city where the abortion provider is located.

    These laws, of course, are premised on the assumption that women ‘don’t know their own minds’ and need extra time to think about abortions. Only tub-of-lard, Republican legislators know what’s good for women, or so one would think based on Turley’s concern.

  2. The question which seems to always get lost in the Abortion debate should be prevailing and answered before any law is written to grant or restrict abortions.

    When does Life Begin?

    Is it a Federal or States issue in determining when life begins? I’d say it’s a Federal issue, our founding Declaration references the Laws of Nature and God and begs for unalienable Rights including Life and Liberty.

    “I pledge allegiance…one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

      1. George: I’ve answered numerous your questions respectfully not knowing you. I took insult when you asked something about a 60 firing a 5.56. I will supply one more answer as to Jan 30, 1968. I was short!

        1. You reveal that you are a veteran. Was Red Beach hit on Tet ’68? Were you in the mess hall, in a bunker, on the berm or outside the wire? CAR, PH, Bronze Star? A simple answer would do nicely.

          Crickets…

          So, in fact, you weren’t wounded, you weren’t killed and you engaged in no war-making activities, yet you proclaim, far and wide, your “veteran” status. You go, boy! The only heroes I know were killed in Vietnam and are still dead to this day in Vietnam, or wounded and still wounded to this day, not running around flaunting something they don’t possess. Was is Hell. Combat is a Mother——! Right?

          1. Man’s delusions thinking they have clairvoyance and assuming they know all without direct knowledge, leads towards what we see today in Woke, judgment on feelings and not facts. Directly speaking: I rightly don’t give a damn what you think, I know what I experienced. I commend you for your Valor.

    1. When life begins is a scientific question, not a legal one. When personhood begins is a legal question. It begins at birth.

      1. ” When personhood begins is a legal question. It begins at birth.”

        You are making this up. There is a legal definition for person but not for personhood.

        1. I’m not making anything up. Personhood is “the quality or condition of being an individual person” (Oxford Dictionary). The meanings of both “person” and “personhood” are legal rather than biological questions.

          Would you rather that I have said something like: When life begins is a scientific question, not a legal one. Who or what has standing as a person is a legal question. For biological persons (in contrast to nonbiological persons, such as companies), legal standing as a person begins at birth.

          1. Person has a legal definition. To my knowledge, personhood does not. If you can prove otherwise, do so. A person is is human. A dog in the mothers uterus is a dog. A cat in the mothers uterus is a cat.

            If you have proof and definitions, go ahead and use them in context. Otherwise stop blowing smoke.

            1. The legal definition of personhood depends on the legal definition of person. The courts don’t see these as separate. Read the ruling in Roe, for example. Or read the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant cert in Personhood Oklahoma v Barber, where the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that an Oklahoma initiative (395 in 2012) attemping to define that a conceptus is a person was ruled unconstitutional. You agree that person has a legal definition, which is key. A baby becomes a legal person at birth.

              We’re not discussing dogs and cats. We’re discussing whether the fact that the question of when life begins is a biological question, not a legal one, and that the legal question is instead when a human conceptus becomes a person, which isn’t until birth.

              1. “The legal definition of personhood depends on the legal definition of person.”

                In other words putting all the BS aside there is no legal definition of personhood.

                Person has a legal definition and that person doesn’t even have to be alive or carbon based. It can be a company.

                A dog in its mothers uterus is a dog. A cat in its mothers uterus is a cat. A human in its mothers uterus is a human person.

                Your attempts at spin are depraved.

  3. It is an attempt to take power away from the states, period. Therefore, it is a further attempt at federal dictatorship. The answer is, ‘No.’. Are dems capable of anything else at this point? Do we really have to start shooting? The left is beyond consideration, and they do it very, very intentionally. They are no longer a viable party. Enough. Beyond enough. Never voting dem again.

    1. Federal dictatorship, you say?

      Have you ever heard of the “Reign of Terror” of “Crazy Abe” Lincoln?

      It was two against one.

      Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Roger Taney and the U.S. Constitution against “Crazy Abe” Lincoln.

      The facts were indisputable.

      “Crazy Abe” would be acting unconstitutionally as a tyrannical dictator by suspending habeas corpus.

      Of course, it was illegal but “Crazy Abe” Lincoln held a gun to America’s head and proceeded until he ultimately killed one million Americans.
      ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      “Lincoln and Taney’s great writ showdown”

      On May 28, Taney issued an oral opinion, which was followed by a written opinion a few days later. He stated that the Constitution clearly intended for Congress, and not the President, to have to power to suspend the writ during emergencies.

      “The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department,” Taney argued. “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power,” Taney concluded.

      However, Taney noted that he didn’t have the physical power to enforce the writ in this case because of the nature of the conflict at hand. “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome,” he said. But Taney did order that a copy of his opinion be sent directly to President Lincoln.

      – National Constitution Center

  4. If plan B fails- and why would it, with a dem supermajority- there’s always plan c – yet another executive order. Why don’t we just get rid of the judiciary and legislative branches altogether and have Biden (or whoever) rule via mandate and EO? He already is, it would just be nice if they were honest about it. The rule of law is dead. There is no justice. People who walked through the capitol have been rotting in jail for a year with daily beatings and other abuses. “I’m back in the USSR.”

    1. Indeed. I see the word ‘mendacity’ thrown about a lot these days, but is, unfortunately, apt. There is nothing remaining that is redemptive about the left in America. They invented slavery, the KKK, and segregation, and why we have forgotten that is a mystery. We live in an upside down world.

  5. Sotomayor is a hysteric that cannot do the job of the Supreme Court, which is to determine Constitutionality. Her personal opinion regarding right and wrong should not enter into her view on Constitutional issues. If they counted, we wouldn’t need a Supreme Court. Her actions while a related case is coming before the Supreme Court were reprehensible even if one considered them warranted. A lot of people can call for such action and utilize her reasoning. She has caused the reputation of the Supreme Court to be compromised.

    I have seen other justices do similar things, but I don’t think they generally did it in the same compromising way.

    1. Most of the judges and Justices of the judicial branch must be impeached and convicted for abuse of power, usurpation of power, dereliction, failure to execute a sworn oath to support the actual, literal Constitution, et al.

      The executive and legislative branches are controlled by the people through elections.

      The judicial branch is only controlled by impeachment and conviction, otherwise, they act as dictators with impunity, or they deliberately omit and fail to act as dictators with impunity.

  6. What you are calling Plan B sounds perfectly okay with me. Part of the role of Congress is to protect our rights, even from threats posed to them by the states, and for women this means protecting the right to abortion.

    1. (I haven’t seen any laws (active OR proposed) banning abortion. Several of them build on the equivocal “viability” standard declared in the post-Roe Casey case. That means, they want to modify or amend Roe, Casey to reflect a more realistic [window] during which a woman must decide to terminate.

  7. Basically, the media is once again inaccurately reporting on a political issue in order to shape public opinion, in a manner that helps Democrats.

  8. Sotomayor is not only the weakest jurist on the SC, with her comment she demonstrated that she does not deserve to be on the court. If you criticize Trump for his Jan. 6 speech, you certainly should criticize Sotomayor ‘call for action’ statement.

    1. Why do you object to her point that people can “be lobbying forces in changing laws that you don’t like”?

      1. You mean like President Trump told people they could protest the certification of the election, and had a right to seek redress from congress?

        Find a standard you are willing to support your enemies employing. Or just stop with your canned talking points.

        1. I have a standard that I am willing to support my enemies employing. I support people’s right to peacefully protest, even when I disagree with their beliefs. I don’t have a problem with the people who protested peacefully in DC on Jan. 6, only with the hundreds who committed crimes on Jan. 6.

          Don’t pretend that my values are something other than what they really are in order to make a straw man argument.

          1. only with the hundreds who committed crimes on Jan. 6.

            What crimes did they commit? Sentence far exceed simple trespass. Contrasted by a cop shooting an unarmed protester. Giovt killing unarmed protester is now the new official position of the Government

            1. Iowan2,

              “ What crimes did they commit? Sentence far exceed simple trespass. Contrasted by a cop shooting an unarmed protester.”

              If sentencing “far EXCEED simple trespass”, meaning more than just simple trespassing charges. Some serious crimes were committed. There are weapons charges, interfering with a government function, assault and battery, destruction of government property, weapons charges, etc.

              That cop shot a criminal who was forcing her way into a secured area. Being unarmed is irrelevant. Committing a crime by trespassing and intentionally forcing your way into a secure area where congressmen were present amid threats of violence is well within the bounds of using force to protect the congressmen by using deadly force.

            2. There’s a DOJ page that lists all of the Capitol breach cases, including all of the crimes the hundreds of people have been charged with. Have you ever read it?

              The crimes weren’t limited to simple trespass.

        2. Iowan2,

          “ You mean like President Trump told people they could protest the certification of the election, and had a right to seek redress from congress?”

          Trump didn’t just tell people they could protest the certification of the election. He also spread the lie that it was rigged or that there was rampant fraud. He setup the gullible Trump masses for a coup. That’s entirely different than Sotomayor suggesting something that is perfectly within the scope of our democratic process.

          You want to find a standard? Find where president’s can undermine an election by lying and attempting to disrupt a legitimate transfer of power. Have any Supreme Court justices currently on the bench attempted to do such a thing?

          1. Trump didn’t just tell people they could protest the certification of the election. He also spread the lie that it was rigged or that there was rampant fraud. He setup the gullible Trump masses for a coup. — Svelaz

            That’s a lie, Svelaz. There was no attempted coup. The Democratic Party and corporate mainstream media created and spread this political lie. You repeat and amplify it. It’s a Mockingbird talking point.

            There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, including surveillance video and observer reports, of numerous irregularities committed during the election in multiple swing states, not to mention some state officials changing election procedures in contravention of their own state laws. That judges dismissed suits challenging election results for lack of standing does not constitute a refutation of the evidence — it merely means that such evidence has not been heard.

            Where is your outrage over the Democrats, intelligence agents and corporate mainstream media spreading the (evidence free and now debunked) Clinton/DNC lie that Putin rigged the 2016 election for Trump?

            One does not have to be either a Trump supporter or Republican, and I am neither, to see through the lies and rank hypocrisy of the current Democratic Party, corporate mainstream media, and you. Some of us support the rule of law and the Constitution. Some of us value our principles more than partisan political advantage. You obviously do not.

            And now the corporate mainstream media is doubling down on its political gaslighting…

            https://www.bitchute.com/video/67qzjRQEXWDv/

            I believe my lyin’ eyes, not your Mockingbird b*llsh!t.

            1. It was an attempted self-coup. He tried multiple means, including pressuring Pence to act unconstitutionally.

              1. It was an attempted self-coup. — Anon

                No, it was not. That is a lie designed to discredit both Trump and his supporters. MSNBC is now trying to extend that lie to the 2024 election.

                1. It’s not a lie. Trump was trying through various unconstitutional means to continue his presidency beyond Jan 20, even though Biden won the EC vote. That’s a self-coup: trying to unconstitutionally stay in power beyond his legal term of office.

              2. Obamas use of the intelligence agencies was meant to ensure the election of a stooge. There was no attempted self-coup by Trump. He was attempting to right a series of wrongs, but did nothing illegal.

                You lie.

                1. Biden won the Electoral College vote. Congress was certifying the EC vote on Jan. 6. Trump unconstitutionally tried to interfere with the certification.

    2. Double Dutch, Sotomayor’s call for action as you call it was a call to to do the very thing the Constitution permits citizens to do: petition their government for a change in the law. She did not explicitly or implicitly call for anyone to engage in violent conduct.

      1. Neither did Trump but Progressives hear different things than are actually said when somebody they never agree with says it.

      2. As a citizen she can do that, but as a Supreme Court Justice she shouldn’t as she diminished the image of the Supreme Court.

        You don’t seem to be concerned with ethics and morality.

    3. She is absolutely awful. The law may have bumped into her on accident, one sleepless night. It is absurd, and she is a disgrace. New York is no longer a shining jewel. it is an embarrassment for anyone but the uber-wealthy. It has always cracked me up that privileged East coasters that won’t even go to another burrow to go on a date presume to know **** all about the rest of the country. Screw you people. It isn’t our fault that you packed 8 million people onto a tiny island and have a hard time living together.

    4. Uh, Trump was exhorting his disciples to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”, based on the Big Lie, which was the product of his malignant narcissism. Sotomayor was encouraging people to make their opinions known to lawmakers, not inciting violence, and not for ego reasons, like Trump was doing. No comparison whatsoever, but the fact that you think the situations are comparable shows you are a disciple. Sotomayor was spot-on when she referred to the “stench” of politics involed in the SCOTUS even considering tinkering with Roe, based on politics. The Texas legislature specifically admitted it passed the law because the election cheater shoved 3 ultra-right-wing anti-abortion believers onto the SCOTUS. If major SCOTUS rulings change every time there is a change in the makeup of the SCOTUS, then we are nothing more than a banana republic.

  9. Rabid Pro-Choicers will stop at nothing to see their agenda advanced.

    They are predominantly Liberal Democrats who we know are first and foremost congenital Liars……lying is in their DNA (non-scientific usage here).

    They shall never admit or explain what their genuine intent re this new “codification” is all about….they see no need to despite what the Good Professor suggests.

    Roe is bad law…..This new effort is really bad law….but then the Left is pretty flexible on that when it advances their Agenda in legislating….either in Congress or by activist Judges.

    That is why we have the problems today that we do with bad laws.

    When the Federal Courts are made up of activist Judges at the District and Appeals Courts to the extent the system is corrupted….and we have a Supreme Court that has a Chief Justice that places protecting the Constitution of a lesser importance than the political reputation of his Court…..then nothing good comes of all this.

    The Federal Government has assumed far more power than the Founding Fathers saw as being its rightful place.

    Until we return the wrongfully assumed powers to the States….or ban the Federal Government from exercising its wrongfully assumed power….our system of government shall remain compromised.

    Abortion is not something the Federal government should have a role in….in any way, shape, fashion or form.

    That at worst is a State Issue….but more a Moral, Ethical, and Religious issue best decided amongst those affected by it…..and not a government of any kind.

    That the teaching of Ethics, Philosophy, Morality and Religion has gone by the wayside in this modern era of Liberal Progressive Education and a re-writing of history to suit the Progressive Agenda’s needs…..there is scant hope for resolving the Abortion issue.

    1. Ralph Chappell,

      “ Rabid Pro-Choicers will stop at nothing to see their agenda advanced.”

      So…you’re against the ability of having a choice? So no freedom to make your own decisions? No liberty from tyranny?

      “ Abortion is not something the Federal government should have a role in….in any way, shape, fashion or form.”

      It doesn’t. The federal government doesn’t fund any clinics where abortions are performed. It doesn’t promote it either. However it seems those who oppose the right to choose to have an abortion WANT the government involved. By prohibiting the procedure the government forces a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. Even in cases of incest or rape. Just by denying them the choice they are already involved, involved by the demand from others who constantly gripe about government intrusion into private lives and decisions. Yet here they demand government intrude into private decisions of others because they don’t like the idea of someone making decision that it not theirs to make.

      It’s ironic that the majority of people who are against government vaccine mandates are emphatic on the ability to have the freedom to make their own choice, free from government intervention. But not when it comes to women. Those who oppose the ability of woman to have a choice have no issue with government forcing them to undergo ultrasound procedures meant to pressure a woman to change her mind. Government coercion. But given the option of weekly testing or getting vaccinated is too much and is considered tyrannical government coercion.

      The abortion issue is one of a fundamental question. What business does anybody have in intruding into someone else’s personal decisions? If one detests the idea of being told what to do, how to live, or what choices to make, especially by government dictates, what right do they have to intrude on someone else’s personal decisions?

    2. Ralph Chappeli, “Abortion is not something the Federal government should have a role in….in any way, shape, fashion or form.” The government has no role and is playing no role in abortion other than defending and protecting the right itself.

    1. You all wanted to send abortion back to the democratic process.

      You always get it wrong…so wrong.

      We all want to return Abortion to the States, and the People. As defined in the constitution. But the People writing the laws they are governed by, scares the left witless. I think the States are doing a great job of self governess.

      1. Congress is elected by the people (at least for now, Red states are trying to stop that). You all want it sent back to the states because you can make it illegal in about half the states. But a solid D congress could just as easily pass a law that end state level abortion bans.

        1. “you can make it illegal in about half the states.”

          Back to the books. You have no idea of what you are talking about.

        2. But a solid D congress could just as easily pass a law that end state level abortion bans.

          Like elections, abortion is not an enumerated federal power.

  10. Nobody ever defends Roe. Its impossible. Nothing to support the decision, can be found in legislation or the Constitution. Nobody argues for Roe.

      1. Lots of people argue in favor of Roe.

        Wrong. Again.

        People argue the result. Never defend the decision. Never defend the structure that arrives at the decision. Because the decision is not defendable. Turley not as such in this piece.

        The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously criticized Roe as a “heavy-handed judicial intervention … difficult to justify.”

        The Notorious RBG, won’t defend Roe. But she too likes the result. AND admits there is no Constitutional path to justify the ruling.

        1. You should read that partial quote in full and in context. There’s a reason that Turley wasn’t willing to link to the source so you could easily do that.

          Also, in what bizarre world do you think Ginsburg is everyone?

    1. Nobody argues for Roe? What alternative universe have you escaped from iowan2 to enter into ours? Are you restricting yourself so exclusively to a bubble of anti-abortion information, that you are completely clueless about the enormous volume of arguments that have been made for Roe? You can start with the arguments that were made in the original Roe case and go from there.

      1. You can start with the arguments that were made in the original Roe case and go from there.

        Legal scholars are by a large majority, in agreement Roe is bad law, and searches for any constitutionally. Scholars such as RGB. like my post above quotes directly. You ignore the facts and only can see the end result you desire, and ignore the legal fallacy Roe is structured around.

        The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg famously criticized Roe as a “heavy-handed judicial intervention … difficult to justify.”

  11. Womans Health Protection Act?

    What means this word ‘woman’?

    (woke leftist cant keep their own stupid narratives straight. )

  12. Turley says:

    “Jan. 6 rally-to-riot.” It’s telling that Turley inserted this little dig at those Trumpists just to remind them of his abhorrence of 1/6 which he called a “desecration” and advocated for Trump’s congressional censure on account of his “reckless” 1/6 speech.

    The fact that he has not defended Bannon against his criminal indictment for contempt nor weighed in on the merits of those Trump cronies relying upon Executive Privilege to avoid testifying before the 1/6 committee indicates that he does not agree with any of them. Neither has he commented upon the merits of legal memo written by law professor John Eastman nor criticized his being forced out of his law school on account of his speech. Turley has not even bothered to take issue with the recent D.C. Court of Appeals smack down of Trump’s claim of Executive Privilege.

    I warned you Turley was not a Trumpist.

  13. There is No constitutional right to an abortion. 14A has nothing do with it. They use it for everything. Read what the framers wrote about 14. Abortion has always been a state issue, and it still is. 10A

      1. So Congress can identify a right, and SCOTUS will follow that legislation? Or the Executive, by decree?

        Or do you contend, only those NOT accountable to the people have the power to declare something a right. SCOTUS is supreme to the the other two branches of Government?

        1. There are many “rights” that we have that are not codified in the constitution. So yes, they can be added. The entire reason for the 9A is to stop arguments like you are making.

        2. I contend that people have unenumerated rights, including the right to safe medical treatments with informed consent.

          1. Such BS. Let me fix your statement.

            “I contend that people have unenumerated rights, including the right to safe medical treatments with informed consent.” as long as you agree that it is safe and meets your criteria. …And if you don’t take the vaccine we will force you to get it.. You are a dictator wannabe.

            You didn’t sound that way when HCQ and Ivermectin were being considered.

            .

              1. You were all against the use of HCQ and Ivermectin. One considers using medications before they actually give or take them. You are playing word games again Anonymous the Stupid.

  14. IF THE REPUBLICANS WERE TO RETAKE THE MAJORITY IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE COULD THEY REPEAL THE WHPA ?

Leave a Reply