WSJ on Dem’s, Media’s Disinformation Campaign on SCOTUS Abortion Draft Rule: False ‘Parade of Horribles’

The leak of a draft ruling in the case that could bring down Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand as the law of the land has not only revealed a majority on the court have signed on to overturning the decision, but has unleashed a wave of disinformation about what it would mean if finalized.

The Wall Street Journal editorial board calls it the “parade of horribles — a potential ban on same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and even forced pregnancies as portrayed in the dystopian novel The Handmaids’s Tale.

Biden followed suit on Tuesday when he warned the downfall of Roe v. Wade “would mean that every other decision related to the notion of privacy is thrown into question.”

“Does this mean that in Florida they can decide they’re going to pass a law saying that same-sex marriage is not permissible?” Biden said.

The Journal reported: 

The press is full of similar pearl-clutching about which precedent the Supreme Court might strike down next. Is it Obergefell (2015), which enshrined gay marriage? Griswold (1965), which overturned a state law prohibiting married couples from buying contraceptives? What about even Loving v. Virginia (1967), which guaranteed interracial marriage?

The correct answer is none of the above, as Justice Samuel Alito’s draft takes pains to emphasize. 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.”

Alito explained that the “undue burden” test and the viability line – referring to the two standards the court uses based on whether the child can survive outside the womb – has proven completely unworkable in practicable. That is a factor that weighs in favor of overruling precedent.

The Journal board said the Democrats don’t want Americans to know the truth about what the ruling, if it stands, really means because they hope it frightens Americans into taking their side.

In fact, repealing Roe would only mean that abortion policy would return to where it was before the 1973 ruling — to the states’ elected officials.

Follow Penny Starr on Twitter