Today's oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court have been incredibly instructive, educational, and inspiring. As Salem radio (and Townhall colleague) host Hugh Hewitt said, "This entire argument is one of the most accessible, informed, civil discussions of abortion and the Constitution I've ever heard."
Indeed.
The live-streamed audio allowed interested Americans to hear exactly how well-suited each of the nine justices are for the weightiest of all topics they will probably ever hear. It's a fine departure from the made-for-television Senate confirmation hearings that end up shedding hardly any light on anything.
The contrived and partisan battles that transpire in the Judiciary Committee do little to inform us as to what type of justice the nominee to the bench might be and instead serve as grotesque works of performance art for the individual senators who are merely auditioning for their eventual presidential campaign.
Hearing the nine justices actually quizzing the attorneys charged with arguing the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization enlightened us profoundly on their intellect, empathy, and abilities to carry out the critical job they've been given for the rest of their lives.
In some cases, the level of banal and insulting queries mixed with political pontifications left quite a bit to be desired (looking at you, wise Latina). However, some of the justices rose to the occasion of the historic day this may very well turn out to be.
Toward the very end of the arguments, Justice Brett Kavanaugh succinctly articulated exactly what today's discussion is really all about:
Kavanaugh: “You can’t accommodate both interests. You have to pick. That’s the fundamental problem. And one interest has to prevail over the other at any given point in time. And that’s why this is so challenging.”
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) December 1, 2021
That's it. That's the ballgame.
When deciding between the interests of a pregnant woman and the interests of an unborn child, "You can't accommodate both interests. You have to pick."
Kavanaugh then went on to point out how the courts should figure out how to make that choice. "What does the Constitution say about that?"
Justice Kavanaugh (doing great work for public and media here) reviews the interests of the fetal life. “You have to pick. one interest has to prevail over the other at a point in time. And the question becomes: What does the Constitution say about that. Why should Ct decide?” ??
— Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) December 1, 2021
Period. Literally end of discussion. The rest is all noise.
On the one hand, a woman has a right to body autonomy and the right to make medical decisions without government interference. On the other, if exercising that right results in the violent death of another life, whose rights then prevail?
In 1973, Roe v. Wade weighed the same question and came down on the side of the woman's rights over the unborn baby's rights, but to get there, they had to force themselves to believe unscientific mythology about that unborn life.
The baby in question was consistently referred to as "a meaningless clump of cells" or a "zygote" or even a "parasite." When the unborn human baby is dehumanized to such an extent, it eases the way for its tidy removal.
Tens of millions of extinguished "fetuses" later, and the dismal results of the evil arguments made in Roe look like a genocide now that science has caught up to the moral and ethical truths behind this ghastly procedure.
With increased scientific discoveries surrounding ultrasound technology (why do you think abortion enthusiasts are so resistant to pre-abortion sonogram requirements?), it's clear now that the target of the Democratic Party's beloved abortion procedure is a human life.
The Ultrasound, DNA discoveries that show clear individual life characteristics between the baby and her mother and miraculous medical advancements that save the lives of premature babies as young as 21 weeks of gestation make it clear that to be pro-abortion, you must be anti-science.
The "a woman should be able to do whatever she wants to her body" argument can no longer hold water since it is so very clear that it isn't just her body affected by her "choice."
There's no way to know how the Court will decide, and we will probably have to wait six excruciating months to learn of the decision. What we do know is this all boils down to the fundamental conundrum Kavanaugh articulated:
You have to pick one interest over the other; they can't both prevail. So... what does the Constitution say?
If they truly rule based on that simple question, they must come down on the side of life.
Say a prayer. Say a few.