Biden says overturning Roe is a slippery slope to segregating LGBTQ kids in schools



President Joe Biden on Wednesday suggested that if the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is overturned and abortion rights are returned to the states, other rights could be next, including the right of LGBTQ students to attend school with straight kids.

In comments to reporters after delivering remarks on the economy, Biden addressed the leaked draft court majority opinion for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization authored by Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey — two landmark abortion cases. In his draft, Alito argues that abortion rights are "not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions" and cannot be found in the text of the Constitution.

The president criticized Alito's reasoning and made a slippery slope argument about how if "extreme" Republicans pass a law segregating LGBTQ children in schools, the court's draft opinion would presumably allow that.

"This reminds me of the debate with Robert Bork. Bork believed the only reason you had any inherent rights is because the government gave them to you," Biden told reporters.

Referring to his questioning of President Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork in 1987, Biden said, "I said, I believe I have the rights that I have not because the government gave them to me, which you believe, but because I'm just a child of God. I exist. I delegated, by joining this union here, to delegate some rights I have to the governments for social good."

He claimed that Alito's draft opinion rejects an "inherent right" to privacy and suggested that overturning Roe could lead to other important court precedents being overturned. An example he reached for was Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 case where the court ruled 7-2 that a constitutional right to privacy is inferred from the Bill of Rights and that this right prevents states from making the use of contraception by married couples illegal.

"Griswold was thought to be a bad decision by Bork and my guess is the guys on the Supreme Court now," Biden said. "What happens if you have [a state change] the law saying that children who are LGBTQ can't be in classrooms with other children? Is that legit under the way the decision is written?"

Joe Biden says that overturning Roe v. Wade could lead to LGBT children not being allowed in school classrooms:\n\n"This MAGA crowd is the most extreme political organization that's existed in American history."pic.twitter.com/WyW6j52ju0
— Greg Price (@Greg Price) 1651677555

"What are the next things that are going to be attacked?" Biden asked. "Because this MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that's existed in American history, in recent American history," he said.

In his draft opinion, Alito answers Biden's concerns, which were previously raised by Biden administration Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar. In her brief for Dobbs — the case concerning Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban — Prelogar argued that overturning Roe could "threaten the Court's precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights, including the rights to same-sex intimacy and marriage."

Alito rejected this complaint. "This is not correct for reasons we have already discussed," he wrote. "As even the Casey plurality recognized, 'abortion is a unique act' because it terminates 'life or potential life.'" Alito emphasized that "abortion is 'inherently different from marital intimacy,' 'marriage,' or 'procreation.'"

"And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion," Alito wrote.

Lee: SCOTUS should 'immediately' release final Dobbs v. Jackson opinion



Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) on Tuesday said the Supreme Court ought to immediately release its final decision on Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban after a draft opinion for the case that would overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked to the media.

Chief Justice John Roberts has confirmed that a draft court majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization published by Politico Monday is authentic. The opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, offers a full-throated rejection of abortion rights precedents established in the court's 1973 Roe decision and a subsequent 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito writes. "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives."

Roberts blasted the leak as a "betrayal" and has ordered an investigation to determine its source.

Lee, a former clerk for Alito, said the leak is "stunning" in an interview with BlazeTV host Glenn Beck Tuesday.

"As a former law clerk, I clerked for Justice Alito. I can tell you, law clerks are expected to keep utmost confidentiality and decorum. It’s a respectul, collegial, and even friendly work environment. And I can't imagine the damage this leak will bring the atmosphere and the operation of the court," Lee said.

Lee told Beck that as a member of the legislative branch, it was not his place to tell another branch of government what to do. But he shared his opinion that the Supreme Court should issue the final decision on Dobbs "immediately."

"I still don't know who leaked this and what their motives are," Lee said. "Maybe they wanted to leak it so as to make it difficult for justices planning on signing it."

He suggested that the court could release an unsigned order announcing the result of the case with an opinion to follow, to dissuade future attempts to threaten, intimidate, or harass justices into changing how they vote on controversial cases.

"I think it would be good for the court to signal that this is done," Lee said.

Like many other pro-life conservatives, the Utah lawmaker welcomed the court's expected decision overturning Roe.

"There's nothing in this decision making abortion unlawful. That is a fallacy. A fallacy pushed by the left to scare people. What this is saying is that decisions regarding abortion will be made by lawmakers. Primarily, almost exclusively, at the state level. Not at the federal level," he told Beck.

"This opinion, as drafted — I hope and pray this is in fact an opinion of the court, as it purports to be — because as written, it uproots Roe and Casey, root and branch. It doesn't leave anything left of them. It simply makes the case that these are decisions for state lawmakers. Not decisions for federal judges."

Abortion rights activists want men to get involved in the debate by getting vasectomies



With the Supreme Court expected to issue a landmark ruling next year that will determine the fate of abortion in America, some pro-choice activists are advocating vasectomies as a way for men to support abortion rights.

These activists say that men should be more involved in family planning and that going to the doctor to have the tubes that carry sperm to their semen snipped and sealed is an act of reproductive freedom that can relieve pressure on women to kill unwanted children before they're born.

Doctors who perform the male sterilization procedure told the Washington Post they've seen an increase in male patients seeking vasectomies in response to pro-life laws passed by Republican-majority legislatures in several states. In Texas, a fetal heartbeat law seeks to ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy but has been blocked in court. A ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy in Mississippi is at the center of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court case challenging Roe v. Wade's precedent.

Koushik Shaw, a urologist at the Austin Urology Institute in Texas, said his practice saw about a 15% increase in scheduled vasectomies after Dec. 1, when oral arguments for Dobbs took place.

He said patients are telling him, "'Hey, I’m actually here because some of these changes that [Gov. Greg] Abbott and our legislature have passed that are really impacting our decision-making in terms of family planning,’ so that was a new one for me as a reason — the first time, patients are citing a state law as their motivating factor."

Florida doctor Doug Stein, who advertises himself as the "Vasectomy King," advocates for sterilization as "an act of love" by men for their partners, and "the ultimate way to be a good man."

His practice in Tampa offers both vasectomy and vasectomy reversal procedures, and he travels around the world sterilizing men, telling the Post he was inspired to do so because of his concern about population growth. He says a cultural push is needed to make men less hesitant to have their "junk" snipped for family planning. To that end, he co-founded World Vasectomy Day with filmmaker Jonathan Stack, to raise awareness about vasectomies and encourage men to get them.

“It’s a remarkable trend in the family planning community of recognizing and promoting vasectomy and birth control for men, where this was once considered more fringe,” Sarah Miller, a Boston family medicine doctor who supports Stein's and Stack's views, said.

While the Post reported there aren't reliable statistics on the number of men who have sought vasectomies since the Texas abortion ban and U.S. Supreme Court arguments, Miller anecdotally said her practice has seen an increase in male patients since she opened her small clinic three years ago. She attributed the uptick to "the paucity of options for men and people with men parts.”

“It’s outrageous that we don’t have more contraceptive options for people with man parts,” Miller said. “There’s even a misguided sense that birth control is not a man’s job. That men can’t be trusted, or that they would never be interested, and that has led to lack of funding and development."

To be clear, the vasectomy evangelists who spoke to the Post are not saying that men should get sterilized as a replacement for a woman's right to seek an abortion. They want women to have the freedom to kill unwanted children, but they think men can help women out by getting sterilized to avoid pregnancy in the first place.

Stack said men need to be involved in fighting for women to have the right to have an abortion.

"The fact we’re not out there fighting every bit as hard as women is shameful," he said. "The quality of life for millions of men will be adversely affected if this right is taken from women."

'It's liberty': Lawyer for Mississippi abortion provider argues Supreme Court must follow precedent and strike down abortion ban



On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, a case challenging Mississippi's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Jackson Women's Health Organization, the only licensed abortion provider in the state of Mississippi, filed a federal lawsuit against the Mississippi law, arguing that it is unconstitutional based on previous rulings from the high court. Lower courts have ruled the law as unconstitutional.

Mississippi Solicitor General Scott G. Stewart, arguing in defense of the law, asked the court to overturn precedents in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey that established a constitutional right to abortion. He said that these precedents "haunt our country," and lack basis in the text of the Constitution.

After the justices finished asking Stewart questions (covered here), Julie Rikelman, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive rights, who is representing Jackson Women's Health, gave her opening statement arguing Mississippi's abortion ban is "flatly unconstitutional under decades of precedence." The justices also heard arguments from U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who is representing the Biden administration against the Mississippi law.

"Mississippi asks the court to dismantle this precedent and allow states to force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will," Rikelman said.

She gave three reasons for the court to strike down the abortion ban, first arguing that court precedent is clear that an "especially high bar" must be met before a previous decision should be overturned. Second, Rikelman argued that the landmark decisions in Roe and Casey were correctly decided, and are necessary to prevent the state from seizing control of a woman's body by forcing her to carry an unwanted child to term. She said denying a woman the right to abortion would be a "fundamental deprivation of her liberty," which she argued was protected under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Third, Rickelman said eliminating or reducing the right to an abortion will "propel women backwards." She argued that Mississippi's law disproportionally impacts poor women who may not be able to afford contraception and younger women who may not immediately recognize signs of pregnancy.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the longest-serving member of the court, began questions by asking Rickelman a hypothetical based on a 1997 case in which the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a woman who had been charged with child abuse for using cocaine during her pregnancy. The court ruled that a viable fetus was considered a person under the state's criminal code.

Thomas asked Rikelman if she thought the state would still have had an interest in pursuing the case against the woman if her unborn baby was not viable at the time she used cocaine. The question is relevant because court precedent established in Casey says that the states cannot ban abortions before fetal viability or in a case where the restriction would place an "undue burden" on a woman's right to a pre-viability abortion. The Mississippi law bans abortions before fetal viability, at 15 weeks.

Thomas wanted to know if the woman who used cocaine has the same right to "bodily autonomy" as the woman who seeks an abortion.

Rikelman did not answer the question directly, saying that "states can certainly regulate pregnancy both before and after viability to preserve fetal life and to preserve the woman's health." She added that "there are other constitutional issues at stake,” and this case is about a "ban on abortion" which she says violates court precedent.

Up next was Chief justice John Roberts, who began a line of questioning about fetal viability and the 15-week provision of Mississippi's law that seemed to suggest he was looking for a way in which the court might uphold the abortion ban without overturning Roe or Casey.

"Viability, it seems to me, doesn't have anything to do with choice. If it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?" he asked Rikelman.

In answer, Rikelman said that "without viability there will be no stopping point. States will rush to ban abortion at every point in pregnancy." She noted that Mississippi has also passed a six-week abortion ban, for example.

But Roberts interrupted — "I'd like to focus on the 15-week ban because that's not a dramatic departure from viability. It is the standard that a vast majority of other countries have."

"When you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the People's Republic of China and North Korea," he added. "And I don't think you have to be in favor of looking to international law to set our constitutional standards to be concerned if those [countries] share that particular time period."

Other conservative justices seemed less interested in the point about fetal viability and focused in on the precedents in Roe and Casey themselves.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked about adoptions and whether "safe haven laws" in all states that allow women to relinquish parental rights over unwanted children shortly after birth matter. “It seems to me, seen in that light, both Roe and Casey emphasized the burdens of parenting,” she said. Noting that Rikelman made arguments about how "forced motherhood would hinder women’s access to the workplace and to equal opportunities," Barret asked, "Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem?"

Justice Samuel Alito asked a question about whether drawing a fetal viability line for when abortion is permissible and when it is not makes sense at all.

"If a woman wants to be free of the burdens of pregnancy, that interest does not disappear the moment the viability line is crossed," he said.

"The fetus has an interest in having a life, and that doesn't change, does it, from the point before viability and after viability?"

Rikelman argued that viability is "objectively verifiable" and is a logical line to draw because it doesn't require the court to resolve philosophical questions about when life begins.

After a discussion involving Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer on whether Roe and Casey should be considered "super stare decisis," Thomas asked Rikelman a direct question about what constitutional right protects abortion.

"Is it privacy? Autonomy? What would it be?" he asked.

"It's liberty," she replied. "It's the textual protection in the 14th Amendment that the state can't deny someone liberty without due process of law."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh drilled down on the role of the court and precedent. He observed that the "other side" argues that Rikelman's position forces courts "to pick sides on the most contentious social debate in American life," rather than adopt a position of neutrality and let state legislatures hash these debates out.

Rikelman said this issue came up in the court's opinion in Casey and that ruling held that these philosophical disagreements can't be resolved in a way that deprives women of choice. She said the Constitution guarantees liberty and that the court has interpreted liberty to include decisions related to "childbearing, marriage, and family."

Kavanaugh's last question to Rikelman was about stare decisis and monumental court decisions that overturned previous court precedent. Brown v. Board of Education, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell were among the cases overturning precedent that he listed as "some of the most consequential and important" decisions in the history of the court.

“If we think that the prior precedents are seriously wrong,” Kavanaugh asked, “why then doesn’t the history of this court’s practice ... tell us that the right answer is actually a return to the position of neutrality?”

Rikelman responded the view that court precedent was wrong has "never been enough" to justify overturning stare decisis. "The court has required something else, a special justification, and the state doesn't come forward with any special justification," she argued.

The justices revisited many of these points when Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar made her arguments defending the right to abortion. Prelogar said in her opening remarks that the "real-world effects of overruling Roe and Casey would be severe and swift," noting that about half of the states in the union have abortion restrictions on the books that would trigger if Roe is overturned.

Justice Stephen Breyer gave an impassioned plea to his colleagues to read a certain passage from Casey describing when it is appropriate for the court to overturn precedent. Alito asked if it is ever right for the court to overturn a prior decision simply because it was "egregiously wrong" — and Prelogar answered "no," arguing the court has never held that as enough of a reason to overturn stare decisis.

Kavanaugh expressed skepticism that abortion precedent currently accommodates the interests of both pregnant women and unborn children, even suggesting it is impossible to do so.

"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," he said.

He asked if the right solution was the one offered by Mississippi, for the court to be neutral on abortion and let the elected representatives of the people debate the value of human life versus individual liberty.

"There will be different answers in Mississippi and New York, different answers in Alabama and California, because there are two different interests at stake and the people in those states might value those interests somewhat differently," he said. "Why is that not the right answer?”

Mississippi solicitor general asks Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, says abortion cases 'haunt our country'



The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a potentially landmark case considering whether Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban is unconstitutional.

Pro-life and pro-choice activists gathered outside the court building to protest in favor of their respective positions, as the decision in this case will have long-lasting consequences for the future of abortion in America.

Background

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the court is being asked to decide whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional. The case is widely regarded as the most important abortion case in a generation because the state of Mississippi is directly asking the court to overturn precedents established in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) that created constitutional protections for abortion.

The Mississippi law at the center of the case is the Gestational Age Act, passed in 2018. The law bans almost all elective abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with limited exceptions for medical emergencies and cases involving a "severe fatal abnormality." There are no exceptions for rape or incest.

Jackson Women's Health Organization, the only licensed abortion provider in Mississippi, sued the state in federal court, arguing that the law is unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent in Roe and Casey.

Roe held that the 14th Amendment's due process clause includes a right to privacy that protects the right to have an abortion, but conceded that the government has two compelling interests — the health of a mother and the life of a fetus — that limit the right to an abortion. The case created a trimester framework that established when the government could impose restrictions on abortion, based on the viability of a fetus to live outside the womb.

The court returned to the abortion issue nineteen years later in another landmark case, Casey, in which the court upheld the "essential ruling" of Roe, but replaced the trimester framework. The court said that states cannot ban abortions before viability, which occurs around 24 weeks of pregnancy, but may restrict abortion at all stages of pregnancy as long as the restriction does not impose an "undue burden" on the right to obtain a pre-viability abortion.

Jackson Women's Health Organization contends that the Mississippi law places an "undue burden" on women seeking an abortion by banning the procedure at 15 weeks, which is before the point of fetal viability.

Up to this point, all of the Supreme Court's decisions on abortion cases have upheld the precedents established by Roe and Casey. But former President Donald Trump vowed to appoint justices to the court who would overturn Roe, and three of the court's sitting members — Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — were appointed by Trump.

Conservatives hope, and liberals fear, that a perceived 6-3 conservative majority of Republican appointees on the court are poised to overturn Roe, which would trigger laws banning abortions in 26 states to go into effect.

The argument for Mississippi's law

Mississippi Solicitor General Scott G. Stewart argued that the people, represented by elected lawmakers, have the right to make laws permitting or restricting abortion access and that the courts should take a neutral position on the question of abortion.

In his opening remarks defending Mississippi's law, he said the precedents established by Roe and Casey have "failed" by creating a political situation in the country in which the Supreme Court is being asked to answer questions about human life that properly belong to debate in legislatures.

"Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey haunt our country," said Stewart. "They have no basis in the Constitution; they have no home in our history or traditions; they’ve damaged the democratic process. They’ve poisoned the law. They've choked off compromise."

"The Constitution places its trust in the people," he continued. "On hard issue after hard issue, the people make this country work. Abortion is a hard issue. It demands the best from all of us, not a judgement by just a few of us. When an issue affects everyone, and when the Constitution does not take sides on it, it belongs to the people. Roe and Casey have failed, but the people, if given the chance, will succeed."

Justice Clarence Thomas was the first to ask a question. He observed that the court's abortion cases have generally focused on "privacy" and "autonomy." He asked if it makes a difference that the court focuses on those issues rather than a "right to abortion."

Stewart answered that the right to abortion is "not grounded in the text" of the Constitution and is based on "abstract concepts" that should be rejected.

Thomas also asked, "If we don't overrule Casey or Roe, do you have a standard that you propose other than the undue burden standard?"

Stewart suggested that the court provide a "clarified version of the undue burden standard," which he argued is unworkable. He also said the court should adopt a "rational basis review" of abortion jurisprudence, if it does not overturn Roe or Casey.

The liberal justices on the court made appeals to the importance of stare decisis — the legal principle of adhering to precedent. Justice Stephen Breyer quoted passages from the opinion in Casey, warning that re-examining a "watershed decision" without a "compelling reason" to do so would harm the legitimacy of the court.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke against overturning precedent, in agreement with Breyer about the legitimacy of the court.

"The right of a woman to choose, the right to control her own body, has been clearly set forth since Casey and never challenged. You want us to reject that line of viability and adopt something different," Sotomayor said. "Fifteen justices over 50 years have — or, I should say, 30 since Casey — have reaffirmed that Casey viability line. Four have said no — two of them members of this Court — but 15 justices have said yes — of varying political backgrounds."

Sotomayor criticized Mississippi's legislature for passing the law with the direct intent to challenge Supreme Court precedent because there were "new justices" on the court.

"Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception? That the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I don't see how it is possible," she said.

Justice Elena Kagan echoed these points in her questions, worrying that the court would be perceived as a "political institution" that would "go back and forth" in response to public pressure.

Later, Sotomayor grilled Stewart on his argument that a right to abortion is not found in the Constitution. Noting that key decisions like Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review, have established principles that are not found in the text of the Constitution, she asked what made Roe so "unusual" that it needed to be overturned.

Stewart responded that unlike other landmark decisions, abortion is "the purposeful termination of human life."

"How is your interest anything but a religious view?" Sotomayor asked after more discussion. At this point, Justice Samuel Alito chimed in, observing that some secular bioethicists also believe that unborn babies are living human beings.

Stewart said the "philosophical questions" regarding abortion are all "reasons to return this to the people, because the people should get to debate these hard issues."

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Stewart if a ruling in favor of Mississippi would endanger precedent on other decisions on issues like contraception or gay marriage, in apparent response to Sotomayor's line of questioning.

Stewart said it would not because those cases involved "clear rules" that did not deal with the "purposeful termination of human life."

In a clarifying question, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked Stewart to confirm that Mississippi is not asking the Supreme Court to rule abortion unconstitutional and ban it nationwide, but rather is asking for the court to take a silent or neutral position on the abortion question.

"We’re saying it's left to the people, your honor,” Stewart said.

When the justices finished asking Stewart questions, the attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights began her argument against Mississippi's law, which will be covered in a separate post.

Democratic lawmaker warns of 'revolution' if Roe v. Wade is overturned



Days before a highly controversial abortion case will be argued before the Supreme Court, a Democratic senator warned that a "revolution" will take place if the court overturns existing precedent on abortion.

Speaking at a virtual press conference with the rest of the New Hampshire congressional delegation Monday, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said that a decision overturning Roe v. Wade would both turn back the clock on women's rights and outrage the American people.

"I hope the Supreme Court is listening to the people of the United States because – to go back to Adam Sexton’s question – I think if you want to see a revolution go ahead, outlaw Roe v. Wade and see what the response is of the public, particularly young people," Shaheen said, referring to WMUR-TV reporter Adam Sexton.

"I think that will not be acceptable to young women or young men," she added.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which challenges a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with some exceptions. The law has been blocked by lower courts on the grounds that it unconstitutionally restricts a woman's right to an abortion. Court precedent establishes that states cannot restrict abortion before a fetus is able to survive outside the womb, which happens at around 22 weeks of pregnancy.

The Mississippi law was designed to directly challenge court precedent on abortion, with the hope that a majority of Republican-appointed justices will overturn Roe v. Wade.

In a statement released before the press conference, Shaheen painted a dire picture of what the country would look like without Roe's precedent.

“I’ve lived the consequences of the pre-Roe era – I had friends in college who were forced to seek dangerous back alley abortions because women across the country were denied access to critical family planning services. We cannot allow Republican lawmakers to turn back the clock on women’s reproductive health and rights, which is precisely what the Mississippi case seeks to do. It is time to sound the alarm,” Shaheen said. “Roe v. Wade isn’t just a decision that impacts women, their health and their financial security – it also impacts generations of families."

Her colleague Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) added that Mississippi's law is "one of the most extreme abortion bans in the country and it would take us back to almost 50 years ago."

On the other side of the issue, many pro-life legal scholars and other experts commenting on the upcoming case argued Roe and the subsequent landmark decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be overturned on legal, scientific, and moral grounds.

“As legal experts on both sides of the aisle have acknowledged, the Court’s abortion jurisprudence is untethered from the text, history, and tradition of the Constitution. It has imposed on the nation, for several decades now, an extreme, incoherent, anti-democratic regime pursuant to constantly shifting rules, standards, and rationales," law professors Mary Ann Glendon and O. Carter Snead, from Harvard Law School and Notre Dame Law School respectively, argued.

"What’s more, it elevates a particular vision of human identity and flourishing that is both constitutionally unjustified and morally pernicious in that it systematically prevents the elected branches of government from adopting measures that address the needs of the vulnerable mothers, children, and families involved," they wrote for National Affairs.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Grazie Pozo Christie, a diagnostic radiologist and policy adviser for the Catholic Association, explained that the science supports the Mississippi's 15-week statute.

“Perfectly apparent now, to the justices sitting on today’s court as well as the public, are the liveliness and humanity of babies at 15 weeks of gestation — the age at which Mississippi proposes to protect them from elective termination. Nestled within their mothers, these fetuses on average are 6.4 inches long and weigh 4.1 ounces," Christie wrote. "They have the proportions of a newborn — seemingly all head and rounded belly. The major organs are formed and functioning, and although the child receives nutrients and oxygen through the mother’s umbilical cord, the fetal digestive, urinary and respiratory systems are practicing for life outside the womb. The sex of the child is easy to discern by this point. The baby swallows and even breathes, filling the lungs with amniotic fluid and expelling it. The heart is fully formed, its four chambers working hard, with the delicate valves opening and closing.”

While the case will be heard on Dec. 1, a ruling from the court is not expected until next summer.