Debunking President Biden’s claim that if Roe falls, it “would mean that every other decision related to the notion of privacy is thrown into question”

By Dave Andrusko

Today’s final (and brief) post takes as its inspiration an editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal: “The Abortion Disinformation Campaign: Don’t believe the claims that other rights are in jeopardy if Roe v. Wade falls.”

Anticipating the pro-abortionists attempt to link abortion to what the Wall Street Journal calls “unrelated social topics,” Justice Alito writes straightforwardly

None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. They do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and by the same token, our conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way.”

Thus, as opposed to the most prominent “unrelated social topics,” Roe remains stubbornly contentious. The editorial goes on to say

Whatever the High Court thought it was doing in Roe and again in Casey, it didn’t come close to settling the debate. And judges are ill equipped to draw the distinctions in abortion policy that a plurality of Americans say they want.

There are many other keen insights; I’ll just quote one from the editorial: “Roe also stands apart on what Justice Alito’s opinion calls ‘workability; grounds. Roe has continued to inspire a mass of litigation as modified by Casey’s ‘undue burden’ test. No one really knows what that burden is, so states bring case after case to contest it.”

Yesterday we wrote about President Biden when he accidently used the word “child” when talking about abortion. But the entirely point of his comments to reporters assembled on the tarmac was that if Roe v. Wade falls, it “would mean that every other decision related to the notion of privacy is thrown into question.”

No matter how many times pro-abortionists say it will, it won’t.