The news about Roe v. Wade Get over the debt on Friday CNN Newsroom’s panel of partisan hacks and fake journalists feverishly started spewing all kinds of doomsday-saying nonsense. Between legal analyst Jennifer Rodger literally tearing up and claiming women won’t “have the right to track their own cycles,” and chief masturbation expert Jeffrey Toobin wailing “the originalists are winning,” the network was off the rails from the start.
“Standby, Jeffrey. We do have breaking news just in to CNN,” co-host Jim Sciutto announced, getting so quiet you could hear a pin drop on set. “The Supreme Court has just issued – and this is the decision many were waiting for, ruling in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. This the major case regarding abortion rights in this country.”
Jessica Schneider was soon the correspondent and made her first public appearance to share the news. “this nation has been bracing for,” grimly reporting “they have eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion.” And continuing to use the false claim that there’s a “right” to kill a baby, co-host Poppy Harlow joined in: “This is a Court that’s just upended a half-century of law, of a constitutionally protected right to abortion.”
It didn’t take long for things to get dark as Harlow used Chief Justice Robert’s own words to deliver a warning to the court. “[A]Roberts said the following: – courts sometimes get in trouble when they sweep more broadly than necessary,” she said just weeks after a liberal extremist tried to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh.
Mere moments after being brought on the air, Rodgers called the ruling “a heartbreaking betrayal” and nearly broke down crying. “I’m sorry I’m getting — watching the women there. It’s emotional.”
She was in a compromised state and immediately began creating all kinds of scenarios in her head about the horrors she was imagining. She asserted states would confiscate women’s phones because “there’s apps that track menstrual cycles. How far are the states going the try to go in criminalizing every single aspect of women trying to control their reproductive rights?”
“We’re talking about a period of chaos here where women not only can’t be confident that they can get an abortion but can’t even be sure that they have the right to track their own cycles,” she irrationally proclaimed.
Even though Justice Alito’s opinion was limited to Roe and Abortion, Harlow and Joan Biskupic (legal analyst and Supreme Court biographer) teamed up to claim that the Court is trying to eliminate rights like interracial marriages and consentsual acts within the bedroom.
HARLOW: It can also have significant implications beyond the abortion. Look back at all these cases: Loving vs Virginia. Interracial racial marital relationsGriswald: The right to get contraception Texas vs Lawrence: The right to consent privately in sexual acts Obergefell vs. Hodge [sic]The right to a same-sex marriage
How does the court’s decision in that manner affect Alito’s rights? It can legally be used to undercut those rights.
BISKUPIC: It is. This is the fundamental holding.It talks about abortion rights not being included in the Constitution.
Are they really arguing that Justice Clarence Thomas is trying sabotage the interracial marriage of Clarence Thomas?
“Amy Coney Barrett joined in October of 2020. Less than two years we’ve gone when this majority has seized this moment,” Biskupic lashed out at Justice Barrett. “Chief Justice John Roberts would have been ready to overturn Roe at some point, but not so quickly. And this was only because of the death of Ruth Badger Ginsburg and the succession of Any Coney Barrett.”
And shortly before going to a commercial break, Harlow read from the dissent, saying, “One result from today’s decision is certain the curtailment of women’s rights and their status as free and equal citizens.” And with that, she proclaimed that the conservative justices weren’t interesting in protecting anyone, but rather “This was decided on a right to or lack of a right to privacy. It was not decided on equal protection grounds.”
Toobin was a man who tried to force women to have abortions. “The originalists win. Yesterday, they won. At least, that was how Justice Thomas expressed his opinions in the gun case.”
ClearChoice’s lucrative sponsorships and ADT made this possible. You can find their contact information here.
Below is the transcript. Click “expand to read:
CNN Newsroom
June 24, 2022
Eastern Time: 10:11 a.m.JIM SCIUTTO: Standby, Jeffrey. CNN receives breaking news immediately.
JEFFREYTOOBIN: Dobbs.
SCIUTTO: The Supreme Court has just issued – and this is the decision many were waiting for, ruling in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. This case is the biggest concerning abortion rights in America.
Jeffrey Toobin with us while we wait for the final decision.
(…)
Eastern 10:13.10
JESSICA SCHNEIDER – The Supreme Court overturns the landmark ruling this country has been waiting for. Roe v. Wade. They have abolished the Constitution’s right to abortion. This opinion looks very much like the draft we saw just a month ago, at May’s beginning.
(…)
Eastern 10:16.33
POPPY HIGHLIGHT: The court just upended half a century of law regarding a constitutionally-protected right to abort. This affects almost every American family in some way.
(…)
Eastern, 10:18.53
SCIUTTO : It is well-known that the Chief Justice of Canada, about whom you wrote a biographie, preferred slower movements to those with precedents such as this. Let us know what you think about the decision.
JOAN BISKUPIC : Jim, that’s right. This was an essentially 5-1-3 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts agreeing in part to affirm that he would uphold the Mississippi ban against abortion occurring at 15 weeks gestation. However, he wouldn’t have made the bold move to reverse Roe V. Wade.
This is important because John Roberts, chief justice, has not favored abortion rights, but he wanted to preserve the institution of Supreme Court, and reinforce the respect for precedent which is the foundation of Supreme Court’s work. His statement was, “Yes, to uphold Mississippi. However this is such an important change for America.
HARLOW Joan said the same thing just three years and four years before that Roberts courts often get into trouble when they sweep further than is necessary.
(…)
Eastern 10:00 a.m.
JENNIFER RODGERS – Listen. It’s heartbreaking. I’m sorry I’m getting — watching the women there. It’s emotional.
This is an important problem. Privacy is a hot topic. Is it possible that someone is trying to make abortion illegal, not only to women who get them but also to doctors and people driving them there. Will they be able search your app? Apps exist that can track your menstrual cycle. Are the States going to prosecute every part of women who try to control their reproductive rights and go as far as they can?
And that’s where it gets scary because we don’t know what states will try to do. And as Jeff says, it’s going to be a patchwork and it’s going to lead to laws where they try to really invade people’s privacy in unprecedented ways. These laws must then be challenged and argued before the court.
It’s a chaotic period in which not only are women unable to be certain they can have an abortion but also cannot be certain they can track their own cycles.
(…)
Eastern 10:27.49
TOOBIN : The concept and meaning of the Constitution is what it really means.
The conservatives are, for the most part, what they call “originalists.” Who believe the Constitution should be interpreted as the people who ratified it in the late 18th century understood the words to mean. The justice Alito opinion states that the Constitution does not mention abortion, so it doesn’t give you the right to have one. To him, that’s it.
Other justices feel that the Constitution has to be interpreted in light of how the society has changed and sometimes described as a living Constitution and abortion rights was certain– Roe v. Wade and the decisions ratifying it – certainly it was a decision that was based on a living conception of the Constitution.
Originalists win. They won. At least, that was how Justice Thomas expressed his view in the gun case. It all depends on how skeptical you may be about the Supreme Court’s workings. Some justices are determined to find justification for their decisions. This debate about abortion and the supreme Court is primarily an interpretive issue.
(…)
Eastern 10:29.48
HARLOW: This is way beyond – This is way beyond – This can have implications way beyond abortion. Look back at all the other cases. Loving vs Virginia – Interracial racial Marriage; Griswald – The right to get contraception; Lawrence vs Texas – Private consensual sexual acts. Obergefell vs. Hodge [sic]The right to a same-sex marriage
How does the court’s decision in that manner affect Alito’s rights? It can legally be used to undercut those rights.
BISKUPIC: Of course. Many will take advantage of the fundamental holding that refers to the constitutional prohibition against abortion. But, you do mention Griswald vs Connecticut which dates back to 1965. That was when the court said there’s a privacy right embodied in the 14th Amendment that covers couples, including married couples’ ability to get contraceptives. Roe was built on this principle.
The way the justices discussed Griswald is so fascinating. You might recall Amy Coney Barrett, whose votes made all this possible today. She wouldn’t have endorsed Griswald nor the right to contraceptives during her hearing.
She showed us, I believe, what she would do even though Roe was not her first choice. This was inevitable. Poppy, I believe this is a great opportunity to tackle many more challenges.
Last thing, I want to mention about the court. Amy Coney Barrett was appointed in October 2020. Less than two years we’ve gone when this majority has seized this moment. Chief Justice John Roberts would be ready to reverse Roe, but it wouldn’t have happened so fast. It was because Ruth Badger Ginsburg died and Any Coney Barrett succeeded her.
(…)
Eastern 10:42.49
HARLOW. Some more on the dissident. Quote, “One result from today’s decision is certain the curtailment of women’s rights and their status as free and equal citizens.” That’s the dissent – that is part of this result.
It was decided not on the basis of equal protection. The issue was whether there were rights to privacy or not. The decision was not made on the basis of equal protection.
(…)
About Post Author
