Roe Wade No Mo Dreadful Dred Scott?

Our Justices “may” abort Roe v Wade per WSJ’s take on a leaked “draft” opinion, as if one can be “half pregnant,” yet does the breach of ethics by insider show how desperate abortion advocates are to keep up a bogus legal pretense?

Chief Justice Roberts confirms the early draft published in Politico is “authentic” while telling the U.S. Marshalls to find the snitch. Harvard Prof. emeritus Alan Dershowitz opines it was probably a “liberal” law clerk who did the dirty deed that might rank up there with the infamous New York Times leak scandal. But, if so and whatever, this leaked opinion is remarkable by being so precise, so candid & so crystal clear in its overturning the 1973 opinion that ranks up their with the dreadful Dred Scott ruling leading to the Civil War, i.e., essentially that Blacks are not human beings. Said the presumed majority in a 67-page opinion: Roe was “egregiously wrong & deeply damaging … abortion presents a profound moral question [i.e., the beginning of life itself. But while] … The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion … Roe … arrogated that authority.”

The WSJ suggests the draft authored in FEBRUARY & leaked NOW reveals how the Justices “deliberate” on key decisions over time. The final draft, it warns, may yet be quite different from that first one. But, it also suggests the lib Justices have not been able to convince the cons to keep the Roe fantasy alive. Will it also give us renewed faith in the High Court’s Constitutional mandate, i.e., to resist [in the end] partisan politics, vulgar intimidation & legalistic BS?

Davd Soul