Posted on 09/04/2018 1:02:27 PM PDT by Morgana
Sarah Weddington, the Texas attorney who argued for abortion in Roe v. Wade, expressed concern that U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has “the determination” to overturn the infamous case.
Speaking with Glamour this week, Weddington echoed the worries of many in the abortion industry about the future of the high court and abortion on demand.
If confirmed, Kavanaugh would swing the court to a 5-4 conservative majority and open up the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade and restoring protections to unborn babies.
Senate hearings about his confirmation begin Tuesday.
“For several years now I’ve talked about how my biggest worry is who is going to be on the Supreme Court in the future,” Weddington told the magazine. “You’ve got four judges who are not going to diminish or overturn Roe v. Wade. But you need five. … I think Kavanaugh would enter the courtroom to hear a case against Roe with the determination to help overturn it.”
Pro-abortion groups have labeled Kavanaugh’s nomination a “serious threat” to “women’s right to safe, legal abortion,” while national pro-life leaders have expressed high hopes for Kavanaugh and the future of unborn babies’ rights.
Roe v. Wade has been a key focus around the open U.S. Supreme Court seat. For more than four decades it has stood, allowing approximately 60 million unborn babies to be killed legally in abortions. Retired Justice Anthony Kennedy was not a reliable vote on abortion issues. Sometimes he sided with the abortion industry, and other times he upheld moderate abortion restrictions, such as the partial-birth abortion ban.
Pro-lifers hope Kavanaugh would be more consistently pro-life – something that abortion activists like Weddington fear.
SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh
She told the magazine:
“I think the administration is trying to make people think Kavanaugh will not turn over Roe v. Wade,” says Weddington. Although Kavanaugh has said that he will “abide by precedent,” she believes that’s because he knows Susan Collins, the U.S. Senator from Maine and possibly a swing vote on his nomination, will not vote for someone who is explicit about his intent to overturn Roe. “The problem,” she points out, “is he couldn’t overturn Roe as a lower court judge. But he can as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Even if Kavanaugh would not vote to overturn Roe completely, his vote could restore protections to unborn babies. Roe v. Wade and its companion case Doe v. Bolton make America one of the most permissive countries in the world for abortions, allowing late-term abortions after 20 weeks for basically any reason.
Weddington mentioned the possibility of the court chipping away at Roe:
It’s important not to just watch the musical chairs of justices, but to keep an eye on what kinds of cases could come before the court. Some cases might lead the Court to endorse restrictions on abortion access—for example, making waiting periods or parental consent mandatory (as Kavanaugh hinted he might do in one case involving a teen immigrant). But if the Court were to overturn Roe outright, it would be much like the days when Weddington started her career: women would travel over state lines to places like California or New York to get care. “People are already starting to think about, OK, how do we find the money for people with very few funds to get from where they are to a place where it’s legal to have an abortion?” she says. “Over a period of months you could certainly have women desperate to find a place to get an abortion and, I’m afraid, turning to self abortion or illegal abortion someplace.”
The pro-abortion lawyer said she had hoped that opposition to abortion would diminish in the months and years after the 1973 decision.
“Well, I was wrong,” Weddington said, noting the enduring strength of the pro-life movement. Even the Jane Roe of her case, Norma McCorvey, became pro-life and fought to overturn the case that bears her name.
Weddington said she puts her hope in the young women running for political offices. But pro-lifers also have high hopes, not only in the Supreme Court but also in young adults who are taking up the lead in the four-decades-long fight to restore legal protections for babies in the womb.
Overturn Roe, Griswold and Obergefell
How and where did SCOTUS ever get the right to engage in such broad social-engineering?
She forgets to mention, Jane Roe would cheer him on as he did so. So there’s that...
I refuse to believe these demented people who claim an ability to read peoples mind or see into the future!
Until the day they give me winning lottery numbers
[ Sarah Weddington, the Texas attorney who argued for abortion in Roe v. Wade ]
There’s a God in Heaven, honey. Try arguing that case in front of that Judge.
Better find the Messiah soon and re-think your “arguments”.
They should all worry. When we have legislation imposed upon the U.S. by the judiciary when that legislation has never even had a plurality of support from the American people, it had better be in jeopardy. We the People run this country, not “Them the Judiciary”. It’s time the Dems learned it for once and for all.
Elections have consequences. Isn’t that what Liberals said during the Liberal Messiah’s administration?
That would be great.
Roe is bad law. It should not even be a law. Just like slavery was overturned because it was immoral, Roe is worse.
Pray pray pray it’s true! The blood of millions of innocent babies cries out to Heaven. Pray this is true
He can do that all by himself?
Why did he call it “settled law”?
What about the other members of the Supreme Court ,will they call in Sick ,LOL
Never forget that this is the lawyer who perpetrated a lie on the court in that case, having her client claim she was raped, a claim that the client later said was false.
Kavanaugh should simply say he favors abortion for blacks and Muslims and watch heads literally explode!
Is it not true that if Roe vs Wade is overturned, the right to abortion falls to the states????
Wouldn’t that be a show!!!!!!!!
Thank you for referencing that article Morgana. As usual, please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.
Patriot are reminded that, in stark contrast to the rights that the Founding States expressly protected when they amended the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect having an abortion as a right.
In other words, and with all due respect to mom & pop, since parents are evidently not making sure that their children are being taught about the Constitution as the founders had intended for it to be understood, post-17th Amendment ratification, pro-abortion activist Supreme Court justices got away with scandalously legislating from the bench the fictitious “constitutional” right to have an abortion.
So now, since having an abortion is not expressly constitutionally protected, and therefore not a legitimate constitutional protection like activist senators and justices since Roe v. Wade was decided want everybody to believe, every time that a Supreme Court justice needs to be replaced, pro-abortion career uniparty Democrats and RINO senators must do the following in order to keep the politically correct right to have an abortion alive.
Pro-abortion Democratic and RINO senators must fight tooth-and-nail to preserve a pro-abortion activist justice majority in order to keep the fictitious right to have an abortion alive.
This is why patriots must support Pres. Trump by not only electing as many new state sovereignty-respecting, Trump supporting patriots to Congress as they can in the 2018 midterm elections, but also support Trump in leading the states to repeal the ill-conceived 17th Amendment.
The 16th Amendment needs to disappear too.
The only way to stop the baby murder is via a Constitutional amendment - too many states like Oregon, NY and California now allow needless abortions under their statutory law.
If people calculated the damage 50 million abortions did to Social Security finances, an amendment should be politically possible.
At about $200,000 in future FICA taxes lost on average per abortion, abortion will wind up costing Social Security about $10 trillion dollars (~$50,000/recipient on average).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.