Since a still-unknown leaker imperiled the integrity of the Supreme Court by sending a draft Supreme Court opinion to POLITICO suggesting Roe v. Wade is soon to be overturned, Democrats have escalated their literally unbelievable rhetoric to new fear-mongering highs.
President Joe Biden responded to the unprecedented leak claiming "If the rationale of the decision as released were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question — a whole range of rights...It goes to other basic rights: the right to marry, the right to determine a whole range of things," Biden continued.
Not to be outdone, Vice President Kamala Harris chimed in saying "The rights of all Americans are at risk in this draft opinion," claiming "If the right to privacy is weakened, every person could face a future in which the government can potentially interfere in the personal decisions you make about your life.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed that if the conclusions of the leaked draft remain in the Court's final decision, striking down Roe v. Wade "would pave the way for Republicans to obliterate even more of our freedoms."
Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) claimed the lives of Americans would be imperiled by the still-unseen final Supreme Court decision, then went even further to assert "Republicans won’t stop with banning abortion" (a false claim: overturning Roe wouldn't ban abortion), "They want to ban interracial marriage," he claimed.
"SCOTUS isn’t just coming for abortion - they’re coming for the right to privacy Roe rests on, which includes gay marriage + civil rights," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) rhetorically asked "What other constitutional right is going to be on the hit list next?" before answering the question for us. "I can tell you what that is. It’s Obergefell [v. Hodges], the Marriage Equality Act … So, in my view, the Civil Rights that we hold dear are all subject to being undone by this," she claimed.
Echoing the escalating fever pitch of Democrats' desperate rhetoric, far-left Rep. Pramila Jayapal urged Americans to "think about everything from Brown v. Board of Education, you know, marriage equality, you name it — Loving. I mean, anything that we have considered settled law could really be taken away," she said on MSNBC.
Rep. Jamaal Bowman added his voice to the fear mongering effort, saying "Justice Alito’s draft opinion paves the way for LGBTQ+ and Civil Rights to be destroyed."
The Democrat rhetoric around the apparently impending end of Roe v. Wade shows that they haven't actually read the draft opinion, are being intentionally dishonest, or both. It's time for a reality check.
As The Wall Street Journal editorial board pointed out in its piece "The Abortion Disinformation Campaign," Justice Alito's draft opinion went to great lengths to offer assurances that striking down Roe would not endanger other standing precedents:
The leaked opinion is explicit about distinguishing Roe and its 1992 legal revision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, from cases on unrelated social topics.
“None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion,” the draft says. “They do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and by the same token, our conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way.”
It's hard to imagine Justice Alito's opinion could have provided any greater clarity in addressing the concerns he predicted would arise. The other cases being screeched about by Democrats are ones that don't involve the "moral question" that arises in cases dealing with abortion: the existence of another party, an unborn life. They also aren't tied to the Court's previously invented constitutional right to abortion.
While the truth of the matter is unlikely to assuage Democrats who are desperately looking for an issue that can buoy their party's poll numbers ahead of the midterms, it's plainly apparent to anyone willing to open their eyes. The Court's draft decision that the Constitution doesn't provide a right to abortion does not undermine other Court-protected rights "in any way."