Pro-abortion NY Times columnist predicts “The imminent evisceration of the constitutional right to abortion”

By Dave Andrusko

During her 30 years covering the Supreme Court, the influence wielded by the pro-abortion  New York Times’ Linda Greenhouse was so pronounced they coined a phrase for it. The “Greenhouse effect” was an attempt to explain how conservative justices moved steadily left: it was to gratify and gain acceptance from reporters in general, Ms. Greenhouse in particular. 

So as a “Contributing Opinion Writer” Greenhouse does not enjoy the same lofty perch she did covering the Supreme Court. But it does allow her the freedom to troll the Supreme Court for opinions it has written and opinions it hasn’t written yet. Her favorite targets are abortion and freedom of religion. Which brings us to her December 16th column.

“With the accuracy of a drone strike,” she writes, “the three justices appointed by President Donald Trump and strong-armed through to confirmation by Senator Mitch McConnell, then the majority leader, are doing exactly what they were sent to the court to do.”

Her first topic for her own drone strike were the oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case involving Mississippi’s law which protected unborn babies after the 15th week; and the Texas Heartbeat Law, which is designed to protect unborn babies whose hearts have begun to beat, usually at about 6 weeks of pregnancy.

“The resulting path of destruction of settled precedent and long-established norms is breathtaking,” Greenhouse announced. “Settled precedent,” for her, refers to decisions she approves of. Supposedly destroying “Long-established norms” would be just fine if the justices came to the right conclusions.

By the time she connects the dots, Greenhouse apocalyptically warns us that “This weaponized Supreme Court could reshape American life in profound ways.”

After winning for 30 years, Greenhouse never had to learn how to lose gracefully.