Supreme Court liberals botch defense of Roe

 Patricia McCarthy:

...

While hardly alone in her knee-jerk attachment to the faux constitutionality of Roe, neither she nor the other liberals on the Court can address any relevant text in the Constitution that supports that 1973 decision.  That would be because there isn't any.  All that clever stuff about emanations and penumbras was wholly without a constitutional basis.  Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are running intellectual rings around the "it was written by old white men" anti-constitutionalists.  Much of what has been said by the liberal justices and the pro-abortion defenders of Roe would be comical if it were not so deadly serious. 

For example, Sotomayor asked, "Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?"  Does she actually think the Court's decision on Roe in 1973 was not political?  Can she be that dim?  Yes, she can and is. 

Jonathan Turley weighed in on this embarrassing question.  So has George Neumayr.  She revealed a lot about her own mindset when she referred to pregnancy and perhaps parenthood as an "undue burden."  She clearly has no clue about "viability"; the left uses the term to mean "able to live outside the mother's body" when it actually means "able to survive or live successfully."  A growing fetus is viable if not aborted. 

Sotomayor compared a fetus to a "brain-dead person whose foot jerks when tapped," insisting that that does not indicate viability.  When Mississippi's solicitor general, Scott Stewart, asserted that neither Roe nor Casey could have foreseen "the last fifty years of advancements in medicine and science," Sotomayor asked, "What are the advancements in medicine?"  Is she serious?  Is she unaware that as recently as thirty years ago, expectant parents did not know the sex of their child before birth?  Has she not heard of ultrasound, fetal monitoring, fetal surgery?  The advancements in medicine, fetal, maternal, and in every other avenue, have been nothing short of miraculous.  Solicitor General Stewart must have been gobsmacked by that question. 

We can suspect that Sotomoyar has never seen an ultrasound of an embryo or fetus.  By twelve weeks, an embryo becomes a fetus and is fully formed — hands, feet, fingers, toes, and can suck his thumb.  Fetuses move about like the tiny humans they are.  And over these past thirty years, the quality of the images these technologies can provide has improved exponentially.  Parents can have a fifteen-minute video of their baby lounging about in utero at twenty weeks or photographs of their not quite full-term infant's face.

...

She is one of those people who like the outcome of Roe and ignore the unsound basis for the decision.  The 10th Amendment make slcear that certain matters are for the states to decide and abortion is one of those things.