By David Bjornstrom, Esq. — Aside from the legal arguments made in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health hearing at the U.S. Supreme Court, three themes emerged that reveal the deep moral corruption of the pro-abortion movement.
After watching the Supreme Court hearing on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, it seems likely that the Court will allow Mississippi to outlaw abortions after 15 weeks, with exceptions. Although we won’t know for sure until next year, this would give a green light to other states to enact earlier abortion restrictions.
To be clear, however, a decision to allow the Mississippi law to stand would not necessarily overturn the Court’s infamous decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. While overturning is a possibility, it is also quite possible that the Court will insist there is still a more limited “right to abortion” under the Constitution, and require states to conform to whatever new legal standards the Court chooses to impose. In other words, the Court may declare a modified Constitutional “right to abortion,” rather than letting the individual states do what they want.
Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is nowhere near ready to admit that pre-born babies are legal persons entitled to a right to life under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, even though the Fourteenth Amendment says that the States may not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Beyond the legal arguments, though, I was struck by three major themes that highlighted the pro-abortion movement’s moral bankruptcy.
A disdain for motherhood
The attorney for Jackson Women’s Health Organization showed a general disdain for motherhood when she claimed that any historical restrictions on abortion reflect a “discriminatory view that a woman’s proper role was as a wife and mother.” Her implication, of course, is that the role of a woman as wife and mother is not proper. While this may appeal to some people, it is a radical departure from traditional values and probably not a good long-term strategy for her or the movement in general.
Protecting the wrong
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, appointed by President Biden, insisted that Roe and Casey should not be overturned even if they were “egregiously wrong.” Despite a general sense from most of the Court that those cases were legally flawed, the pro-abortion attorneys and three liberal justices—Breyer, Sotomayer, and Kagan—argued that Roe and Casey should be upheld, even if wrong, because so much time has passed and because the Court’s reputation must be protected.
No admitting mistakes, no consideration given to the pre-born, and no apparent concern for the Court’s long-term reputation in doubling down on an unjust legacy.
Justices Alito and Kavanaugh essentially demolished the argument for continuing bad legal precedent by noting all the times in history that the Court has shown the courage to correct past mistakes. Solicitor General Prelogar had to admit that the Court acted properly in 1954 when it overturned the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson case, which allowed racial segregation in schools. However, she had trouble explaining how overturning a bad decision in Plessy was conceptually different than overturning bad precedent on abortion.
A right to kill
I was struck by the selfishness of those on the pro-abortion side who insist that women should be able to get unrestricted abortions in order to achieve their personal goals. Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked repeatedly about adoption as an alternative, but Solicitor General Prelogar insisted that women have a “profound interest” in “not being forced… to have a child out in the world.”
Was she arguing for the right to dispose of a child just to cover over some sense of shame from an unwanted pregnancy? How did that make Justice Barrett feel, who has two adopted children?
The Solicitor General’s comment about aborting the baby to avoid having “a child out in the world” reminded me of Mother Teresa who said, “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”
The Dobbs hearing exposed the moral corruption of the pro-abortion industry but offered some measure of encouragement. The Court seems likely to move in the direction of life, but we can expect big fights ahead on both the state and federal levels.
To learn more about the work of the Personhood Alliance and our 100% pro-life, no exceptions stance, subscribe to our email list.
David Bjornstrom, Esq., is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court bar and a retired Santa Rosa, CA-based attorney with 38 years of experience specializing in business, estate, and tax law. He serves in various pro-life and elder-focused outreach ministries. David and his wife have six children, including two adopted from China, and 16 grandchildren.