A draft majority opinion of the Supreme Court was leaked in May which indicated that the court was prepared to overturn the 1973 precedent on abortion rights set by the Roe v. Wade decision in upholding a new Mississippi law that strictly limits abortion procedures.
Now Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Conner (R) is heralding the “strong possibility” that the nation’s highest court will finally do the right thing in allowing individual states to properly address the “national sin” of abortion as each state best sees fit, the Conservative Brief reported.
The Republican attorney general went on to decry Roe v. Wade as a “ridiculous decision” that had no real basis in the U.S. Constitution and had horrifically resulted in the deaths of approximately 60 million unborn babies since that ruling was made.
Time for states to address the “national sin” of abortion
Oklahoma AG O’Connor told Breitbart News Saturday of the “staggering possibility” of a Supreme Court reversal on Roe v. Wade and what that would mean to the pro-life movement as well as the nation more generally, “Because that violence of abortion really has cost us 60 million-plus American lives.”
If and when that occurs, “that will then turn the decision back to the people and their elected state legislatures” of how best to regulate the “national sin” of abortion.
“We’ve got to keep going until we’ve determined that abortion is the taking of a life and is not legal in America,” O’Connor added. “And you know what, I think we can find other solutions that don’t involve the taking of a life in a crisis pregnancy.”
Court is supposed to interpret laws, not make policy
Of the Roe v. Wade ruling itself, O’Connor said, “It was a ridiculous decision. It was not a scholarly legal opinion. It was a political popularity contest.”
He went on to describe how the 1973 court had expanded upon the debatable notion of a “right to privacy” hidden within the Constitution to somehow encompass a right to an abortion and how the justices had engaged in lawyerly “parsing of words” to both acknowledge the humanity of an unborn baby but still deny it the inherent rights of personhood.
O’Connor pointed out how that runs contrary to environmental laws that protect the egg of an endangered species the same as a mature adult as well as U.S. criminal law that routinely prosecute double murder or manslaughter charges against individuals who kill a pregnant woman and her unborn baby.
“We shouldn’t have the Supreme Court making policy in the country. They’re supposed to construe laws. The policies are supposed to be embedded in laws by our legislature,” he added.
Still waiting for the final ruling
It was on May 2 that Politico published the unprecedented leak of a draft majority opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade — which immediately prompted angry protests, vandalism, and violence from pro-abortion advocates as well as an internal investigation at the Supreme Court into who, exactly, leaked that draft opinion to the media.
In the meantime, interested parties on both sides of the abortion debate are anxiously awaiting the formal release of the final opinion on the Mississippi abortion case known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which will be released within the next few weeks prior to the conclusion of the court’s current term in early July.