What to Expect in a Post-Roe World

Below is my Hill column on what to expect in a post-Roe world. That world is already taking shape with states crafting their laws reflecting the values of their citizens from Colorado passing a law protecting the right to abortion up to the moment of birth to Louisiana banning all abortions except in limited circumstances. The fact is that most Americans are in the middle in this debate with more nuanced views than many political leaders. In the months to come, we will see if that view will prevail in the majority of states.

Here is the column:

In their historic ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, six Supreme Court justices noted that the nation was grappling with this deeply divisive issue in 1973 but that “Roe abruptly ended that political process.” The court has now declared that the future of abortion will rest with 330 million Americans rather than nine justices.

As this matter returns to the states, it is striking to consider what has changed legally and socially in the past 50 years. The comparison may hold some interesting surprises for politicians who are now declaring, as did President Biden, that “this fall, Roe is on the ballot.”

How little has changed

If one looks solely at the alignment of states, surprisingly little has changed. In 1973, 30 states banned abortion at any stage of a pregnancy, with some exceptions for the health of the mother. In the Dobbs litigation of 2022, 26 states asked the court to overturn Roe and its successor, Casey.

Thus, we remain deeply divided.

Roughly 16 states are poised or expected to make abortion illegal immediately under so-called trigger laws. South Dakota, Louisiana and Kentucky have immediate prohibitions that will come into effect. Missouri claimed to be the first to declare all abortion as unlawful except for medical emergencies.

Twenty-seven states have protections for abortion that are expected to continue. States like Colorado, New Jersey, Oregon and Delaware actually protected abortion without any limit on the stage of a pregnancy — guaranteeing the right up to just before time of birth.

Internationally, only seven countries allow abortion after the 20th week. While many countries have decriminalized abortion, most are closer to Mississippi than Michigan in limiting abortion to the first or second trimester.

How much has changed

While Dobbs is a major reversal of a long-standing precedent, much has changed legally since 1973. After Roe, the Supreme Court continued to expand protections over lifestyles and intimate relations. In the parade of horribles that followed Friday’s release of the Dobbs ruling, politicians and pundits warned that the decision could undo cases protecting contraception, same-sex marriage and other rights.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Vice President Harris and other Democrats continue to claim that the court was taking the country back to the last century. The image of criminalized homosexuality, marriage bans and contraception limits is unnerving — but also untrue.

In the Dobbs decision, the court’s majority expressly, repeatedly rejects the application of this holding to these other rights. Indeed, it is relatively rare to see the court go to this extent to proactively close off the use of a new case in future cases. The court said that “intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage” are not impacted by its holding because “abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged.” It noted that abortion is unique in dealing with “what those decisions called ‘fetal life’ and what the law now before us describes as an ‘unborn human being.’”

The court repeatedly stressed that those claiming the country will be put into a legal Wayback Machine are simply using the opinion “to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights.” It could not be more clear, as the court said, that “rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed ‘potential life.’”

The court and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurrence repeat, almost mantra-like: “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Only Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that these other cases should be examined, yet even he stressed this opinion expressly rejects that application.

Putting aside the legal changes, there are major technological changes since 1973 that will impact the post-Roe world. Roughly 60 percent of abortions today are carried out at home, not in clinics, using pills with mifepristone and misoprostol to abort a pregnancy. In 2021, the Food and Drug Administration permanently removed the in-person requirement for these prescriptions and allowed women to access the drugs via telehealth appointments and online pharmacies. It will be difficult for states to interfere with such prescriptions, particularly if the federal government protects such access.

How we have changed

The greatest change may be us. As this issue returns to the states for citizens to decide, we are a different country than we were in 1973. Great strides have been made in the advancement of women and a wider acceptance of people making decisions about their own lives and values. While we remain divided on abortion, the public seems far more moderate and unified than the leaders of either party.

While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi’s 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision.

Indeed, there is a tendency toward Roe revisionism. Roe supporters ignore that Roe’s constitutional rationale was always controversial, including among some liberals. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, called the ruling “heavy-handed judicial activism” and felt the decision went too far. The original Roe actually died years ago when it was gutted by Casey in 1992 in its logic and tests. It was later the subject of 5-4 decisions that created a confusing muddle of what constituted “undue burdens.”

Such revisionism is a natural part of grieving. In Shakespeare’s “Richard III,”the Queen Mother was asked how to deal with the hate of loss. She responds: “Think that thy babes were sweeter than they were; And he that slew them fouler than he is.” The same is true of Roe revisionism. Roe is now presented as inviolate and beyond question in its constitutional footing, while the opinion that slew it is presented as threatening every right secured since 1973.

Our post-Roe world will not be written by Congress with the proposed federalization of Roe or another 50 years of conflicting court decisions. Instead, it will rest with citizens in 50 different states in coming years. The process just might surprise us.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

333 thoughts on “What to Expect in a Post-Roe World”

  1. Biden and the Dems cannot let the country heal or allow for a country to dialogue. No it mustn’t be! Biden, Durban, Pelosi — all good Catholics THEY insist — it’s all an affront, the whole issue. For the US, a country third only to North Korea and China on the issue. Really? And what exactly has changed in places like NY? Even their beloved highly liberal pope they distance from here. Can we heal? Can we dialogue? Absolutely not, the campaign issue is so tasteworthy. Acc to the New Zealand study though by an agnostic sociologist, post abortion women suffer from high incidences of domestic abuse, addiction. What about wonderful programs like Project Rachel. Btw/ the millstone Jesus spoke about appears in the Gospel and in the final chapters of Revelations.

  2. Well I think I have a pretty good idea of what to expect. Groups of politicians endlessly horsing around with the variables of a 9-month pregnancy. They didn’t do a good job before Roe. They’re not going to start now.

    Even good people with real jobs wouldn’t be able to legislate it well.

    But in any event, good luck trying to do much about the pills — which is where pregnancy issues are heading. They’re small and easy to transport, via the black market or pick up in an adjoining state.

    So ultimately, it’s going to come down to hearts and minds. President Clinton said abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare.” I would hope we could at least adopt that societal ethic.
    Currently, nearly one in four women in the United States has an abortion by age 45. That’s not rare.

  3. Jonathan: Your nemesis Lawrence Tribe has weighed in on the Dobbs decision overturning Roe. Tribe has accuses Alito of a “shoddy” ruling that has been debunked by historians. I have read some opinion pieces by a number of historians who say Alito misinterpreted the early history in America regarding how abortion was treated. The “shoddy” part involves his gushing praise for the “great” and “eminent” 17th century English jurist Sir Matthew Hale. Hale was the preeminent misogynist of his day. He thought that once married a woman placed her body under her husband’s “permanent domain” and she not complain if he raped her. To be fair Hale was not an outlier. He reflected the prevalent views of his day. Women were excluded from the legal profession and the judiciary. For centuries Hale has been cited in legal opinions. He had an outsized influence in American jurisprudence. Until the 1970s in the US a husband could not be prosecuted for raping his wife. Even today in 21 states rape within marriage is treated more leniently. To cite Hale so prominently in his opinion probably reflects Alito’s own views of women.

    Alito also mispresents the historical record on abortion according to many historians. The common law in the first decades of America did not regulate abortion before “quickening” –the moment a woman feels fetal movement. And the white men who constructed the early American legal system cited Hale in refusing to give women the right to vote or other aspects of full citizenship. If you can channel your Founding Father hero James Madison ask him about the letter he received from his wife, Dolley, who told him not to forget the “ladies” as he was writing the Declaration of Independence.

    But back to Lawrence Tribe. He has accused the majority in Dobbs of “misleadingly” quoting him. He says: “Don’t be fooled. The writings from which the Court cherry-picked my quotes were totally supportive of the result in Roe”. Now I would expect you would want to respond to Tribe. That would require a thorough analysis of Alito’s opinion that you have so far chosen to ignore. We are all waiting.

  4. People forget the original Roe ruling was extremely limited in Abortion to RAPE/INCEST/LIFE of the MOTHER, and only in the first 2 trimesters. In essence, abortions could not be performed AFTER 26 weeks. Later rulings allowed for abortions up to the very last minute. Even the most crass person cannot fathom taking a baby and killing it at 36 weeks, it is a baby.

    I think the original ROE limits are reasonable. The hubris and arrogance of the left, Planned Parenthood, and the MSM has created this potential of violence. They should have left ROE alone and not used abortion to make sure they had “designer” babies.

    I do believe that life begins when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall (not necessarily conception). I also do believe that it is probably WRONG to punish the potential baby because of the rapist. However, since I am a man, I will not IMPOSE the trauma of a woman to bear the child of a rapist.

    No one has ever done a study of the effects of those performing abortions or getting them. I did know a young lady that did get an abortion. She named the child and mourned every year at the anniversary of the child’s abortion. IF this is common, this is not just a “simple” medical procedure and should be considered a destructive process, not to the unborn child, but to the woman getting the procedure.

    1. It’s not true that “the original Roe ruling was extremely limited in Abortion to RAPE/INCEST/LIFE of the MOTHER.”

      Here’s the ruling: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

      The main holding was
      “(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.
      “(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
      “(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”

      “In essence, abortions could not be performed AFTER 26 weeks”

      That was left to each state to decide, with a nationwide exception “where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”

      “Later rulings allowed for abortions up to the very last minute.”

      Nope, later rulings were generally consistent with Roe but discarded the trimester framework and instead simply made it before/after viability.

      “They should have left ROE alone and not used abortion to make sure they had “designer” babies.”

      Who on earth are you talking about making “designer babies”?!?!?

      “No one has ever done a study of the effects of those performing abortions or getting them.”

      I doubt that you’ve gone searching through the research literature to check. Maybe I’m wrong about that: what search terms did you use? Also, you shouldn’t overgeneralize from the 1 person you spoke to. Plenty of women have spoken publicly about their choice to have an abortion and whether it was the right choice for them.

  5. If God likes to see people killed by earthquakes, tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, and volcanos, he’ll get a real kick out of a nuclear holocaust.

  6. It is not legitimate for the Court to say that the principles it applied in Roe cannot be applied to contraceptives, homosexual conduct or same sex marriage simply because abortion involves the termination of life and the others do not.

    The Court held in Roe, based on Glucksberg, that the only tests for determining whether a liberty is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution’s due process clause is whether it was deeply grounded in this nation’s history and traditions and was implicit in the concept of ordered liberty (whatever that may mean). By this test, homosexual conduct and same sex marriage would not be protected, though the use of contraceptives by married couples might be (Harlan reached this conclusion in Poe and Griswold).

    So if the Court were to reassess these substantive due process cases exclusively on the basis of the tests held to be applicable in Roe, at least two would fail, and the third might as well.

    But this would not be the end of the matter. As Alito stated in his opinion in response to the dissent, the Court would then need to analyse these cases under the stare decisis tests articulated in Roe. These are: the nature of the error; the quality of the reasoning; workability; implications for and consistency with other judicial principles; and concrete reliance. I suspect the Court would apply these tests to retain those precedents.

    And to get to the Court in the first place a state would have to pass a law restricting the right in question. I am not aware of any states likely to do so. Then the case would have to be appealed up to the Court, and four justices would have to vote to hear it. I don’t think there are four who would do so, especially after the statements they made through Alito’s opinion. Thomas might vote to hear it, to seek to eliminate substantive due process altogether, but few if any others would join him.

    1. The Court will do whatever it wants.

      It can lie if it wants, as it did in describing the “facts” in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. It can use different reasoning for an issue it wants to uphold than one it wants to strike down. For example, there is no right to carry a concealed weapon that is “deeply grounded in this nation’s history and traditions and was implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” but they struck down NY’s law anyway.

      They claim to be concerned about the plummeting trust in the Court, but their own actions — along with the actions of many Senators, McConnell chief among them — are to blame.

      1. The Glucksberg test applies in substantive due process cases. It is not applicable to enumerated rights.

        1. I didn’t say that it applies. I said that the court can use different reasoning for an issue it wants to uphold than one it wants to strike down.

          You yourself note “By this test, homosexual conduct and same sex marriage would not be protected” (and you omit that mixed race marriage also would not be protected), yet you do not believe that there are 4 Justices who’d grant cert.

          Glucksburg is a bad test. It essentially says that if those with power were bigoted in the past — against women, against LGBT people, against people of color, etc. — that alone is reason to rule against them now.

          1. You yourself note “By this test, homosexual conduct and same sex marriage would not be protected”

            Because those are things the Constitution, leaves to the States

            1. “No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

      2. there is no right to carry a concealed weapon that is “deeply grounded in this nation’s history and traditions and was implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” but they struck down NY’s law anyway.

        You and all the leftist get the BoR backwards. It does not hand out rights.

        The BoR, enumerates POWERS, the govt cannot use to abuse its citizens.

        What the BoR, states, The govt cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. States are infringing on the citizens rights, by so severely limiting the utility of arms.

        Just like you ignore the conflict between a women’s ability to have an abortion. And a baby’s right to life.

      3. Kennedy v. Bremerton

        The court just noted, the school could not ban speech, using Religion as a shield. It wasn’t until after WWII that the school day did not start with prayer. You dont like the decision, but it follows the Constitution.

        1. Again: my point was that the Court lied in describing the “facts” of the case.

          You are too weak a reader to follow the actual argument.

    2. Those who are strict Constructionists won’t, because they follow the principles of the Constitution and do not MAKE LAW. Those who are more liberal WOULD, however, not with this ruling. They did with ROE, Roe was extremely restrictive. However by 1977, they had taken Roe, and extended the right to abortion to week 40, and ultimately to gay marriage. By the way, if you want freedom in marriage, I do not understand why they restrict marriage to MONOGAMY. I would think that FREEDOM in that case could be applied to plural marriages).

      A strict constructionist will NEVER apply this ruling to marriage, because it did not apply to marriage. However, when they do look at marriage, they will find that the gay marriage ruling was poorly framed as well, and marriage should go BACK to the states where it belongs.

  7. The Supreme Court never should have had the ability to make life and death decisions for children or anybody else in the first place. Centralized power at the federal level always leads to communism and extreme injustice.

      1. It may seem frivolous to you, but the fact remains that a communist nation cannot exist without a centralized, all powerful government. The first necessary step to becoming a communist nation is to establish the strong centralized government that can impose it’s totalitarian authority throughout the entire nation.

  8. I predict a rise in the use of contraceptives by both men and women.

    1. I predict some states will attempt to outlaw some contraceptives, falsely claiming that they’re abortifacients.

  9. I think the justices themselves are partly to blame for the lack of civility and heated rhetoric surrounding the discussion and reaction of these cases. While JT tries to briefly acknowledge good-faith disagreements on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment and the right of privacy, the justices show utter contempt for their colleagues opinions. For example, people have pointed out here that Alito was mocking the dissent in the gun decision and Roberts in the abortion decision. He also referred to Roe as egregiously wrong and exceedingly week. Scalia was famous for his one liner insults of his colleagues.

  10. I spoke with a few men over the past few days about the overturn of Roe v Wade. Their position was that abortion was no one else’s business, and that the Supreme Court should have left it alone.

    OK. I asked them if they agreed with the original Roe v Wade statement that the State has an interest in protecting the potential human life she carried. This allowed restrictions.

    I said if it’s no one’s business, then let’s say a wife is 8 1/2 months pregnant with her husband’s first child. She has an affair and decides to leave her husband, get an abortion, and start afresh. This would require 2 days, the baby would get a lethal injection en utero and she would go home. The baby would die, she would return the next day, get induced, labor, and deliver a stillborn. She’s not getting out of the risks of carrying the pregnancy to term, or labor and delivery. She’s delivering a baby no matter what. Only, in this case, she wants her husband’s baby dead. Is that right? They thought that was terrible, and should be restricted.

    I told them the case that triggered the overturning of Roe v Wade involved bans on abortion after 15 weeks. So, large with child. They thought aborting a baby at that state was terrible.

    So…you DO support restrictions on abortion?

    I also told them that the SCOTUS did not rule as to whether abortion should be legal or illegal. Instead, they ruled that it was not in the Constitution, and returned it to the legislature.

    Since they did support abortion restrictions, why not legislate the issue? By the end, they had changed their mind, and thought it was a good idea to legislate. They no longer felt it was none of their business.

    This encapsulates the entire abortion argument. It’s not a yes/no issue, but rather a spectrum of opinions. When people stop yelling, they often find common ground.

    Liberal states will have gruesomely permissive abortion laws, while conservative states will have far more restrictive ones. As Turley pointed out, medication abortions will likely still be available. People can travel or move to other states, and Pro Choice charities can fund travel. Or maybe Joe Biden will hand out more money for people to take abortion vacations.

    Whether you’re Pro Choice, Pro Life, or anywhere in between, it would be nice if our society regained a sense of value and responsibility for the unborn. This idea that unborn babies are just scraps of tissue, parasites, or balls of cells speaks volumes about our culture. Not everything that is wrong or unethical is or should be illegal. Perhaps we can teach the wrongness of a woman deliberately killing her child, even though abortion is still a legal option in many cases.

    1. Karen, any woman who casually abort in the third trimester would probably be a lousy mom. But statically third trimester abortions are less than 5% of the total. Furthermore, most doctors won’t perform late term abortions without extraordinary circumstances.

      1. Third trimester abortions are less than 1% of the total, and are generally only carried out because the woman’s life or health are seriously endangered or because the fetus is newly diagnosed with a condition likely to be incompatible with life after birth.

        I’ll repeat some of what I wrote Karen about this over a month ago:

        Let’s look at specific cases of people LEGALLY aborting a viable fetus. I’m not aware of many. Are you?

        If I’m remembering correctly, one example is a court case where a 12 y.o. was pregnant through rape by an adult relative, and the parents wouldn’t allow her to get an abortion, and she went to court to get permission, which was finally granted — but only when she was 7 months along (presumably the fetus was viable at that point, but I don’t know). Would you have forced that 12 y.o. to continue the pregnancy and give birth? I wouldn’t.

        Or, consider the situations where someone has a wanted pregnancy and terminates it in the second half of the pregnancy after the fetus is diagnosed with an awful medical condition where the newborn is likely to die shortly after birth and to experience significant pain, seizures, etc. before dying. I would not force a woman to bring that pregnancy to term only to watch her newborn die a difficult death, though I’d support her decision if that what she chose. Would you force her to give birth? [An example of a husband discussing his wife’s and his decision to abort a wanted pregnancy at 24 weeks because of such a diagnosis: https://twitter.com/wtadler/status/1521167627833552899 ]

        Or, consider the situation were a woman’s life is endangered. Here’s one (quoting a Washington Post article):
        “[Vanessa Cullins, Vice President for External Medical Affairs for Planned Parenthood Federation of America] says there also are cases after viability in which an abortion is safer than an induced childbirth or surgical delivery. Cecily Kellogg, 44, a writer who lives near Philadelphia, says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and “my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute,” she says. The doctors said they had to quickly dilate her cervix and perform an abortion to save her. “I fought it,” she says. “But they told me I would die — that it was either me and my son or just my son.” She says it was a “horrible experience,” but the right thing to do.”

        Would you have forced her to give birth and risk death? Why do you insist that your assumption that she could have safely delivered the very early remaining twin is justified? Why do you think you understand the medical issues better that Kellogg’s doctors?

      2. Let’s do some math 600,000 x 0.05 = 30,000 or roughly the number of non-suicide gun deaths/year. I find it interesting that the pro-abortion ghouls are ok with this abhorrent number.

      3. But statically third trimester abortions are less than 5% of the total. Furthermore, most doctors won’t perform late term abortions without extraordinary circumstances.

        What Karen is showing you. Murdering a baby was just fine. It has nonthing to do with quantity. It’s either OK to murder a baby, or not. I say, not.

        1. Glad to know that you’re OK with killing the mother if the pregnancy puts her life at risk.

          Glad to know that you also want to force women to carry pregnancies to term where the fetus has a condition that’s incompatible with life after birth, and then watch the newborn die.

          Because those are the situations where 3rd trimester abortions occur.

          One woman’s abortion later in pregnancy:
          “[Vanessa Cullins, Vice President for External Medical Affairs for Planned Parenthood Federation of America] says there also are cases after viability in which an abortion is safer than an induced childbirth or surgical delivery. Cecily Kellogg, 44, a writer who lives near Philadelphia, says that was the situation she faced when she was nearly six months pregnant with twin boys in 2004 and developed severe preeclampsia. One fetus had already died and “my liver had shut down, my kidneys had shut down and they were expecting me to start seizing at any minute,” she says. The doctors said they had to quickly dilate her cervix and perform an abortion to save her. “I fought it,” she says. “But they told me I would die — that it was either me and my son or just my son.” She says it was a “horrible experience,” but the right thing to do.”

    2. Karen,

      I’ve repeatedly asked you what YOU believe the law should be, and you’ve consistently refused to answer.

      I’ve repeatedly tried to get you to have a conversation about the hard issues, and about false claims you’ve made, but so far, you’ve been unwilling to admit your mistakes, even while asking me to apologize to you for mine (which I did): https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/11/the-mob-is-right-georgetown-law-professor-calls-supports-aggressive-protests-at-the-homes-of-justices/comment-page-4/#comment-2184584

      Let me try again: if it were up to you to determine what the abortion law would be in your state, what would you want it to be?

      And how do you feel about laws like Missouri’s new law which outlaws all abortions except those needed for medical emergencies (“no abortion shall be performed or induced upon a woman, except in cases of medical emergency”)? If a 12 y.o. in MO becomes pregnant after being raped by her father, no abortion is allowed — not even a medication abortion in the first week — unless she develops a complication that puts her life at risk.

      1. Dear Anonymous (ha!): How do you propose a state will stop Plan B from bein sent in the mail to your fake patient?

        1. David,

          If it takes Plan B 2 days to reach someone by mail, it’s not going to work when the person takes it. The effectiveness is very time-sensitive.

          Also, Plan B is not effective for women who are overweight: https://endocrinenews.endocrine.org/august-2014-pregnant-pause/

          But elsewhere, I already spoke about the federal government making abortifacient pills (not emergency contraception) available through the mail.

  11. Speaking of cowards, this is a brutal takedown of Chief Justice John Roberts.

    free link

    On Abortion, John Roberts Stands Alone


    …..Instead, Justice Samuel Alito’s five-justice majority opinion disdains any interest in identifying “what period of time is sufficient to provide such an opportunity,” as Chief Justice Roberts calls for. The opinion baselessly asserts—as did counsel for both sides—that Roe and Casey’s constitutional vision of a woman’s right to choose can’t be preserved absent the viability standard. Justice Alito mocks Chief Justice Roberts’s effort by twice invoking the latter’s prior words from Citizens United v. FEC (2010): “Stare decisis is ‘a doctrine of preservation, not transformation,’ ” he quotes. “We cannot embrace a narrow ground of decision simply because it is narrow; it must also be right.”


  12. Strange silence from the Marixist Pope on the issue.

    “The Vatican Press Office as well as the U.S. Bishops’ Conference are reacting to this historic day with a suspicious moderation, as if it is an embarrassing duty for them. Bergoglio is silent, but he was very talkative when it came to attacking Donald Trump or supporting Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Democratic candidates.”

    Here is Archbishop Vigano sharing his message.


    1. It is understandable that, like Satan, you prefer to be stealth. Deceitful, cunning cowards are like that. Satan detests the Word of God, the Holy Spirit, who chooses all Popes, and Satan definitely does not want American Catholics reading Papal encyclicals like “Evangelii gaudium”. That you have not is testament that Satan reigns in your heart with the most deadly of all sins: Pride.

      Go to Confession, pray a sincere Act of Contrition, serve Christ in the broken people in your daily walk, and study, practice, rehearse, pray daily Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Then maybe youll understand the heart of Jesus. Jesus does not like cowards

      In Evangelii gaudium, the document that outlined the “road map” of the current Bishop of Rome, we read: “Among the vulnerable for whom the Church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenceless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this. Frequently, as a way of ridiculing the Church’s effort to defend their lives, attempts are made to present her position as ideological, obscurantist and conservative. Yet this defence of unborn life is closely linked to the defence of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development. Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems.”


      1. estovir:

        “Francis didn’t refer to the ruling or explicitly mention abortion in his homily. But he used the buzzwords he has throughout his papacy about the need to defend families and to condemn a “culture of waste” that he believes is behind the societal acceptance of abortion.”


        It is curious that a presumptively Pro-life Pope has nothing to say and just points to a letter when the rest of the Church is in celebration. Very curious indeed.

      2. Sorry, but what a strange reply message. “Satan reigns in your heart.” What the hell are you talking about? By the by, I “understand the heart of Jesus” far more than you, brother. Your message is quite telling in this regard.

        And sorry, but the Holy Spirit did not choose THIS pope. Wake up, man.

        1. Nevermind. I think Estovir’s comment was reacting to Vigano and maybe I misunderstood?

          (Stepping away from the computer now) 😉

      3. Number one lesson from Jesus for you, Estovir: Jesus was judgment free. He turned the other cheek, remember that? He did not attack. He taught only Love. Your judgments and attacks in your message to me are not *of Jesus*. They are of fear, of satan as you say. You’re the one whose got some work to do to “understand the heart of Jesus.

      4. Estovir, et al;

        I haven’t watched this below yet but Zagami has been around for some.


        30:53 minutes:

        Survival Shield X-2 Nascent Iodine is back at 25% off! Take your cellular function to the next level today!
        Visit InfowarsStore.com Today & Support The Infowar!
        Skip Ad in 7
        Vatican Expert: We Are Facing an End Times Scenario



        Jun 22, 2022
        The Alex Jones Show
        The Alex Jones Show

        Leo Zagami joins Alex Jones live via Skype to expose the possible resignation of Pope Francis, the war in Ukraine, and how the appointment of a new pope will converge with the crisis in eastern Europe into an end times scenario.


        1. At about 18:28 minutes in the video he mentions “the link between demonic possessions and the [covid] vaccine which are actually surfacing now in the Catholic church.” Very interesting.

          1. Something seems a foot. Life Insurers & Funeral Home Directors are seeing some very large outerlies. On that Banned.Video has clip on the clots that are being pulled out of the dead.

      5. Btw, my comment has the words of Archbishop Vigano in quotes. They are his words, not mine.

    2. Stooge, Pope Francis is smart enough to know how unpopular this is. The church can scarcely lose more parishioners.

  13. Planned Barrenhood’s CEO is married to Robert Johnson, a partner of George Soros.

    The internet is forever, even if they try to scrub Wayback Machine

    The nerve of Planned Barrenhood sounding the alarm for a need for financial support. Disgusting but typical of the Left



    Snow-capped peaks; nightcaps with Larry Summers; discussions of complexity theory over breakfast; Tennyson quotations from Gordon Brown at lunch. No it’s not Davos—it’s Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, where over the weekend the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET), which George Soros set up in the wake of the financial crisis, held its second annual conference. Last year’s inaugural get-together was held at King’s College, Cambridge, the home of Keynes. This year’s location also had a strong link to J.M.K. It was the grand old Mount Washington Hotel, which in the summer of 1944 played host to a famous international conference about the post-war monetary system.

    Soros launched INET in 2009 with the intention of fostering fresh ways of thinking to replace an economic orthodoxy that manifestly had failed. Two years on, it’s not clear how far he’s succeeding in that enterprise, but Rob Johnson, a former Capitol Hill staffer and employee of Soros Fund Management, who heads up INET, has certainly put its annual meeting on the map. This year’s conference attracted more than two hundred economists, policy makers, and journalists from around the world. The subjects covered ranged from “Too Big to Fail” to the European debt crisis to “New New Trade Theory.”

  14. You scratch a liar you get a thief

    The CEO of Planned Barrenhood, Alexis McGill Johnson, is married to Robert A. Johnson, economist, financial partner to George Soros.
    Net worth of Alexis Johnson? Millions and millions of dollars. Killing black babies, manipulating poor black women, so that she and her husband can rub elbows with George Soros

    why am I not surprised. this is both grotesque and laughable. The hypocrisy of the Left in Democrat circles make the Catholic Crusades look like a pow-wow. At least the Crusades were a response to Muslims invading Jerusalem and Europe.


    Robert A. Johnson, PhD, is the Executive Director for the Institute for New Economic Thinking, backed by George Soros. He serves on the UN Commission of Experts on International Monetary Reform under the Chairmanship of Joseph Stiglitz. He is also the Director of Economic Policy for the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute (FERI) in New York.

    Johnson was previously a managing director at Soros Fund Management where he managed a global currency, bond, and equity portfolio specializing in emerging markets. Prior to that time, Johnson was a managing director of Bankers Trust Company, managing a global currency fund. He also served as Chief Economist of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee under the leadership of Chairman William Proxmire (D. Wisconsin) and before that, he was Senior Economist of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee under the leadership of Chairman Pete Domenici (R. New Mexico).

    He received a PhD and an MA in Economics from Princeton University, and a B.S. in both Electrical Engineering and Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

  15. (OT)

    The feds seized John Eastman’s phone with a search warrant executed on the night of 6/22, and the next morning, another warrant was executed at Jeff Clark’s house, also including electronic devices. That’s in addition to search warrants and subpoenas involving multiple other people associated with the fake electors scheme in the last week.

    The DOJ investigation of the fake electors scheme seems to be heating up.

    1. Apparently, what else we can expect in a post-Roe world is more Left wing violence, like domestic terrorists firebombing crisis pregnancy centers for women who don’t want to abort their pregnancies. Will the media stand in front of the burning wreckage and describe them as “mostly peaceful”?

      1. Your response has nothing to do with my comment, and the violence I’ve seen so far at pro-choice protests has come from police (though of course that doesn’t guarantee that there is none from protesters). Here’s an example, where the police did not help a man they’d beaten who seemed to be having a seizure and also would not allow bystanders to help him:

        I found this very hard to watch.

      2. The left is doing its best to make the J6 committee look like fools.

    2. And like the collusion delusion is an illegal investigation.
      DOJ may not investigate or prosecute something that is not a crime.

      There is no “fake elector” scheme. The constitution specifies that state legislatures determine the electors.

      Further we have had multiple slates of electors before – see the harris/tilden election.

      Must we have Durham II after 2024 – where DOJ an Garland and he FBI get investigated for running another fraudulent investigation.

      We know most all the facts here.
      There is no crime.
      Just a legitimate but unlikely to succeed approach that the left is terrified of.

      I would suggest reading some of the oppinions in Bush/Gore 2000. There was a 4 justice minority seeking to leave the entire mess in the hands of the FL legislature – as the constitution demands.

      While not a majority – you can not claim a legal position that was supported by 4 justices of the supreme court – and actually occured more than 100 years ago is somehow illegal or unconstitutional.

      1. I couldn’t care less about your opinions John. As for the T/F claims that you make, they’re too often false, and even when confronted with evidence that they’re false, you cling to them. Your mind is closed, like those of too many Americans.

        1. “I couldn’t care less about your opinions John.”
          That is of course your choice.
          You are also free to call facts opinions – but that does not make it so.

          “As for the T/F claims that you make, they’re too often false”
          Then you can demonstrate that.

          “and even when confronted with evidence that they’re false, you cling to them. Your mind is closed, like those of too many Americans.”
          I have no problem revising my positions when presented with evidence.
          But contra your claim here – it is extremely rare that anyone here confronts me with evidence – must less evidence that some claim I have made is false.

          Most posters who “confront me” do not have a clue what a fact is, or what the difference between an opinion and a fact is, or what probability is.

          There is ample evidence that I have revised my positions and apologized for actual errors when I have made them in the past.
          Very few others have ever done so. That said I am rarely wrong. That is not arrogance, it is the consequence of verifying the facts before making a claim. Something ANYONE can do.

          There are too many americans whose minds are closed. I am near certain we completely disagree over which ones.

          Those with a track record of past credibility – such as on the myriads of faccets of the collusion delusion, to the myriads of facets of Biden faamily corruption in Ukrain or the rest of the world should be trusted on issues such as the election or J6 over those who have been WRONG about all those and many more issues.

          That is how credibility works.

          If you have specific examples of errors on my part that damage my credibility – you are now as always free to raise them.
          Which FACTS, LOGIC, and Reason.

          I will take serious interest in VALID logical arguments. I have no interest in fallicious nonsense and ad hominem.
          If those on the left did not have fallicies – they would have nothing,

Comments are closed.