Sotomayor's intellectual limitations on display in the oral arguments over Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health

For anyone paying attention to the abortion case just argued before the Supreme Court, it would be hard to miss the deep emotional passion of Justice Sotomayor in defense of Roe v. Wade.  The justices heard arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health over a Mississippi law that prohibits termination of pregnancies after 15 weeks.  Lower courts have found the ban plainly unconstitutional due to the half-century of legal precedent since Roe and put it on hold.

While hardly alone in her knee-jerk attachment to the faux constitutionality of Roe, neither she nor the other liberals on the Court can address any relevant text in the Constitution that supports that 1973 decision.  That would be because there isn't any.  All that clever stuff about emanations and penumbras was wholly without a constitutional basis.  Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are running intellectual rings around the "it was written by old white men" anti-constitutionalists.  Much of what has been said by the liberal justices and the pro-abortion defenders of Roe would be comical if it were not so deadly serious. 

For example, Sotomayor asked, "Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?"  Does she actually think the Court's decision on Roe in 1973 was not political?  Can she be that dim?  Yes, she can and is. 

Justice Sotomayor in 2017 (photo credit: Gage SkidmoreCC BY-SA 3.0 license).

Jonathan Turley weighed in on this embarrassing question.  So has George Neumayr.  She revealed a lot about her own mindset when she referred to pregnancy and perhaps parenthood as an "undue burden."  She clearly has no clue about "viability"; the left uses the term to mean "able to live outside the mother's body" when it actually means "able to survive or live successfully."  A growing fetus is viable if not aborted. 

Sotomayor compared a fetus to a "brain-dead person whose foot jerks when tapped," insisting that that does not indicate viability.  When Mississippi's solicitor general, Scott Stewart, asserted that neither Roe nor Casey could have foreseen "the last fifty years of advancements in medicine and science," Sotomayor asked, "What are the advancements in medicine?"  Is she serious?  Is she unaware that as recently as thirty years ago, expectant parents did not know the sex of their child before birth?  Has she not heard of ultrasound, fetal monitoring, fetal surgery?  The advancements in medicine, fetal, maternal, and in every other avenue, have been nothing short of miraculous.  Solicitor General Stewart must have been gobsmacked by that question. 

We can suspect that Sotomoyar has never seen an ultrasound of an embryo or fetus.  By twelve weeks, an embryo becomes a fetus and is fully formed — hands, feet, fingers, toes, and can suck his thumb.  Fetuses move about like the tiny humans they are.  And over these past thirty years, the quality of the images these technologies can provide has improved exponentially.  Parents can have a fifteen-minute video of their baby lounging about in utero at twenty weeks or photographs of their not quite full-term infant's face.

Sotomayor seems to know none of that.  Why would she unless she were a justice on the SCOTUS and found such knowledge useful?  Oh, she is a justice on the SCOTUS.

This is not the first time she has proven herself to be an intellectual lightweight of the AOC variety.  She cannot be blamed for her lack of maternal experience, but she can be blamed for her lack of knowledge of the extraordinary advances in medical science when it comes to new life.  She must never have been interested in the topic.  The wise Latina is rather limited in her knowledge base.

Justices Kagan and Breyer are both hostile to any religious reasons for the pro-life position.  "Not much has changed since Roe and Casey," Kagan said.  "The reason people agree or not are the same reasons they've always had ... aren't we in the exact same place, except that we've had 50 years of women relying on this right?"

Not much has changed?  Of course it has.  Those of us who gave birth before the 1970s and have been blessed with grandchildren know exactly how much has changed for the better.  Women who have trouble conceiving can almost always be helped now.  Babies born prematurely, even at 26 weeks, can survive and thrive.  The pro-abortion crowd can crow all they want about a woman's right to "choose" to end the life of a nascent baby they do not want, but the times are changing.

Those who believe that abortion is a woman's right to post-conception birth control have cost the lives of many millions of babies, especially Black babies.  That is the legacy of Margaret Sanger, founder of what would become Planned Parenthood.  Sotomayor and Breyer fretted about the politicization of the Court!  Roe was a political decision.  They, leftists on the Court, are the ones who are committed to its using and abusing its political power.  That is how the left rolls: use every institution for political purposes, and ignore the Constitution. 

There can be no doubt that the Marxist left abhors the nuclear family, considers parenthood a burden and a blight upon women.  One of the most hilarious comments by those defending Roe and Casey was this sentiment: "The burden of parenthood is an obstacle to women's success," uttered by the pro-abortion attorney to the Court, even though Amy Coney Barrett, a mother of seven, is a sitting Supreme Court justice.  While many women of a certain age may have embraced the "right to choose" decades ago in the misguided belief that an embryo was "just a blob of cells," medical science and technology have blown that ignorant notion into a thousand pieces of light.

Life begins at conception, that has been proven beyond any doubt, and when all women come to realize that their embryo-soon-to-be-fetus is an entirely separate human being with his own DNA, his own blood type, who seeks life, they may come to respect that life.  The mindset of Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer is a lesson in denial: the denial of science, the denial that an unwanted pregnancy is a life striving for an earthly existence.

What is shocking is that those lefty justices and the attorneys pleading their case are so ignorant of the advances in medical science and technology that disprove every argument they present.  Each new life is precious, a gift, and each one is quite distinct from its mother.  Abby Johnson, author of Unplanned, wrote, "Pro-life feminists believe in women and their ability.  Pro-choice feminists only see women as weak and something to be exploited."

Sotomayor and Kagan perfectly exemplify that pro-choice mindset.

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

If you experience technical problems, please write to