Justices Show Roe Skepticism

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday morning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The case will decide the fate of Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, and perhaps, the fate of Roe v. Wade and the life or death of millions of Americans yet to be conceived. A decision is unlikely before the end of June. Veterans of Supreme Court cases past know that it is risky to read the tea leaves from questions at argument, but it is hard to see how the argument could have gone much better for the pro-life cause. Now, we wait to see if the Justices have the fortitude to do the right thing, end 48 years of judicial usurpation, and restore the primacy of the Constitution.

The lawyers for the abortion clinic and for the Biden administration insisted on an all-or-nothing outcome, giving the Court no alternative path to uphold the Mississippi law without overruling Roe. Every effort by Chief Justice John Roberts to find some potential compromise standard was rebuffed. That is a risky strategy when the likeliest way to disappoint pro-lifers is the Court’s incrementalists preferring to bend rather than break Roe, but it reflects the calcified, uncompromising extremism of the pro-choice movement.

About the Author

The Editors

The Editors comprise the senior editorial staff of the National Review magazine and website.

Featured Tags

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday morning in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The case will decide the fate of Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, and perhaps, the fate of Roe v. Wade and the life or death of millions of Americans yet to be conceived. A decision is unlikely before the end of June. Veterans of Supreme Court cases past know that it is risky to read the tea leaves from questions at argument, but it is hard to see how the argument could have gone much better for the pro-life cause. Now, we wait to see if the Justices have the fortitude to do the right thing, end 48 years of judicial usurpation, and restore the primacy of the Constitution.

The lawyers for the abortion clinic and for the Biden administration insisted on an all-or-nothing outcome, giving the Court no alternative path to uphold the Mississippi law without overruling Roe. Every effort by Chief Justice John Roberts to find some potential compromise standard was rebuffed. That is a risky strategy when the likeliest way to disappoint pro-lifers is the Court’s incrementalists preferring to bend rather than break Roe, but it reflects the calcified, uncompromising extremism of the pro-choice movement.