NY Times: U.S. Supreme Court Is Unlikely To Strike Down Roe v. Wade

New York Times:

“WASHINGTON — Abortion rights are at risk at the Supreme Court, but the short-term threat may not come from extreme measures like the one passed by Alabama lawmakers.

The court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is more likely to chip away at the constitutional right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade than to overturn it outright. It will have plenty of opportunities to do so.

As soon as Monday, the court could announce whether it will hear challenges to three provisions of Indiana abortion laws on issues like the disposal of fetal remains and an 18-hour waiting period after state-mandated ultrasound examinations. The court will in the coming months almost certainly agree to hear a challenge to a Louisiana law that could reduce the number of abortion clinics in the state to one. …”

New York Times:

“Abortion foes in state legislatures seem awfully sure of themselves lately. By passing bills that would severely restrict abortion, lawmakers in Alabama and Georgia have in effect asked the Supreme Court not only to overturn Roe v. Wade immediately, but also to recognize the personhood of the fetus. The history of the abortion debate suggests, though, that by going as far as these measures do, anti-abortion legislators may have overplayed their hand.

Start with the idea of fetal personhood. Both the Alabama and Georgia measures rely on the concept of “natural law”— unchanging moral principles that have supposedly existed since before the Constitution— to support the idea that a fetus is a person. But these kinds of arguments don’t have a record of judicial success. …”

After 56 million abortions, I’m sensing that the evangelicals aren’t going to be satisfied with chipping away at Roe v. Wade for another 40 years.

These people have been told for a generation that it was necessary to swallow their concerns about every other issue facing our society to vote for the Republican Party in order to pack the court with conservative justices like Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts. They’ve been told that babies are being murdered. It is now or never for the anti-abortion movement. Either the Supreme Court will strike down Roe v. Wade or True Conservatism will be exposed as one long con.

Get your popcorn!

Note: I’m looking forward to seeing how John Roberts spins this one. It is our view that Conservatism, Inc. is nothing but a gigantic scam.

About Hunter Wallace 12366 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. I would love to see abortion declared illegal by the Supreme Court, but like OD, I hold that *Conservatism, Inc.* is a “gigantic scam”. A natural law, especially one based upon the moral proclamations of a deity, has no place in an atheistic and materialistic culture like 21st century America. Regrettably, America is no longer a Christian nation.

  2. Good. Overturning RvW would result in a less white and more black America, with the increase being made up of the least functional blacks.

    Women, families, communities and nations have an absolute right to kill rape babies, including after birth. All traditional societies around the world practiced that. It’s morally right to do no matter what the law says. You think rape babies were allowed to live in ancient times? These idiotic boomer cuck laws would make white women give birth to babies from an invading army of ISIS terrorists. Positing universal “rights” for rape fetuses is a product of radical liberalism, not of any kind of traditional values.

    There has been too much autistic purity spiraling over this issue. We are pro-white movement, not an anti-abortion movement. Many whites who fought for their race and were 100% racially loyal support and have supported legal abortion.

    This is not defining issue for us at all. We need to back away from boomerism and adopt reasonable positions on issues not directly related to race and immigration. That is the path to victory.

Comments are closed.