Don't Miss Our MASSIVE State of the Union VIP Sale
Tony Evers Just Sold Wisconsin Out to the World Health Organization
A Tempest in a Locker Room: Taking a Sober Look at Kash Patel’s...
The Press Ignores an Assassination Attempt As the Huffington Post Takes the Gold...
The Atlantic Thinks Republicans Have a 'Nazi Problem'
Proof that Anti-Gun Group Cares About Control, Not Safety
Social Media Erupts After HuffPost Questions National Pride at the Winter Olympics
Here's How the Supreme Court's Tariff Ruling Exposes Liberal Justices Desire to Expand...
The Violence in Mexico Vindicates Trump’s Push to Treat Drug Cartels As Terrorists...
Gavin Newsom Doubles Down on His Racist Comments: It's 'Fake F**king Outrage'
The Canadian Cope Surrounding the Team USA Win Is Hilarious
Pressure Is Mounting Against Tony Gonzales. Will He Suspend His Campaign?
Mexican Special Forces Kill Mastermind Behind Cartel Terrorism Outbreak
The Women's Hockey Team Snubbed Trump's SOTU Invite
Limited Government, Lasting Opportunity
Tipsheet

Even Jeffrey Toobin Knows SCOTUS Arguments Were a 'Disaster' for Abortion Advocates

Even Jeffrey Toobin Knows SCOTUS Arguments Were a 'Disaster' for Abortion Advocates
Photo by Chris Pizzello/Invision/AP, File

The much-anticipated Supreme Court arguments — more on those from Katie here — over abortion access versus the right to life in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization did not go well on Wednesday for those advocating for some constitutional right to abortion. 

Advertisement

It doesn't require any spin to glean that impression from the arguments if you tuned in live, either. The arguments offered — and responses to questions from justices — from those seeking to end Mississippi's protections for the unborn were so bad that even CNN's chief legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin called it a "wall-to-wall disaster."

Multiple questions posed to the pro-abortion side — especially from Justices Thomas and Barrett — were apparently too much to handle, as observers pointed out.

Of course, pitching abortion as a constitutional right and defending Roe v. Wade as a sound principle is an undesirable position to be in. As Justice Roberts highlighted, the pro-abortion side was arguing for laws more similar to those of North Korea and China than are found in Europe and elsewhere.

Advertisement

Justice Alito grew apparently frustrated with the pro-abortion side's non-answers to his questions and demanded "give me a yes or no."

Others who've witnessed the machinations of the Supreme Court from the inside also shared their evaluations of Wednesday's arguments, and they thought it "went about as badly for the pro-abortion side as it could reasonably have been expected to go."

And while criticism of the pro-abortion arguments came from all sides, credit was given to those arguing on the side of life for their succinct and competent explanation of new knowledge of fetal pain and science allowing babies to survive outside the womb earlier that has developed since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. 

Advertisement

The result of the pro-abortion side's mediocre-at-best performance before the High Court has already caused The New York Times and Washington Post to throw in the towel and predict that the Supreme Court will likely uphold Mississippi's protection of the unborn — and open the door to overruling Roe v. Wade

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement