Editor’s note: The Daily Signal’s audience expressed joy that the Supreme Court appears posed to reverse Roe v. Wade and dismay at the leak of a draft majority opinion. Here’s a sampling of what’s in the mailbag at firstname.lastname@example.org.—Ken McIntyre
Dear Daily Signal: I read with interest Douglas Blair’s report on the protests Saturday evening outside the homes of Supreme Court justices (“What I Saw When Protesters Marched to Supreme Court Justices’ Homes”). My own opinion on abortion has evolved over the years, in particular after hearing then-Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s comments on failed abortions.
Abraham Lincoln had a way of pointing out Democrats’ hypocrisy and complete absence of critical thinking skills. I can picture Lincoln finding and speaking to a vegan in the pro-abortion crowd and asking them why they don’t eat chicken eggs. We all know the answer the vegan will give. Then Lincoln would ask them why they don’t feel the same way about a fertilized human egg. Is it the internal fertilization and gestation that’s throwing them off—you know, the science part?
Back to the protesters. It’s my honest hope that our laws will be equally applied to these protesters if they come into and vandalize churches or homes.
Our elected officials, media pundits, and opinion makers need to keep in mind that if they had been doing their jobs, a 17-year-old boy would not have been on the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin, with a Smith & Wesson M&P 15. They need to do their jobs before 30- to 40-year-old combat veterans feel they need to protect their family, homes, neighbors, and community.—Mark Williams, North Carolina
Awesome story by Douglas Blair. But there is one thing missing: arrests.
These people violated the law. It is illegal to attempt to coerce or threaten members of the judicial branch of the government. If there are no consequences for committing a crime, crime will continue.—Wolf Mojica
Those protesters who were the subject of Blair’s reporting Saturday night were able to protest because their mothers did not abort them (“What I Saw When Protesters Marched to Supreme Court Justices’ Homes”). I think I have a right to speak, because I chose to give life to three children without aborting them and without a father for them.
Human life is too precious. All life is precious. Do you think the babies would agree to be killed if they could give their opinion?—Valora Glinski
So where do the protesters live? I will go protest at their homes and disrupt their peace.—Frank Bilek
What’s in Draft Dobbs Decision
Dear Daily Signal: Although I’m hopefully anticipating the end of Roe v. Wade, after reading Richard Reinsch’s commentary I question the legal analysts who state that the question of abortion rightly resides with the states (“Dobbs Opinion, If It Stands, Rights Supreme Court’s Wrong”).
In the same way, I question the notion that the decision to enslave Africans resides with the states.
The question in both cases is, “Who are the people subject to the protections of our Constitution?” That isn’t something that ought to change when we cross state lines.
The Supreme Court eventually will have to address the question of the personhood of the unborn. The justices will have to issue a ruling on whether the unborn are protected by constitutional provisions that also are involved in preventing the legalized murder of those of us fortunate enough to be counted among the born.—Karen Cox, Waynesboro, Ga.
Dear Daily Signal: I found Richard Reinsch’s commentary article enlightening in explaining the arguments on abortion before the Supreme Court (“Dobbs Opinion, If It Stands, Rights Supreme Court’s Wrong”). He also brings up a key point about common law perception about the rights of women in our society, taking the historical view.
People today, in their cancel-culture wokeness, totally forget that what we perceive as a right in 2022 is not a guaranteed right unless we make it a legal statement—a law.
I worry more about my rights, as a woman, to be accepted on an equal status as a man. Women are expected to allow a man to have sexual activity, whether the woman wants to or not. And women are expected to be the ones who prevent pregnancy, even if it limits women’s enjoyment, as long as the men get their full enjoyment. Plus, the men get to walk away from any obligation scot-free.
With this kind of male historical reasoning, prostitution should be legalized as a business. Marriage needs to be a contractual obligation. Having children in any relationship should require agreement prior to any sexual activity.
In other words, men need to know that having sex with women has a high cost. Then they will realize that women have a right to say “no” to abuse of their bodies if they don’t want to become pregnant.—Maria Rose
Superb article by Richard Reinsch. It answered many of my concerns and is very clearly explained. Thank you.—Mary Bauman
A Mother’s Abortion Story
Dear Daily Signal: Thank you for Cathy Harris’ beautiful commentary on how and why she became pro-life (“I Had an Abortion. Here’s Why I Want Roe Reversed.”).
I too am haunted and remorseful daily for that terrible decision I made in 1982. Forty years later, the joy I should have felt upon seeing our first grandchild’s sonogram only made me weep for what I had done.—Laura S.
Thank God for Cathy Harris. She is unafraid to speak up for life! Thank you, Heritage, for publishing her story.—Anthony Perrella Sr.
Thank you to Cathy Harris for sharing her inspiring story. May she continue to be that beacon of hope that so many need to see.—Michael May
I too had an abortion on my 17th birthday, in my fourth month, in 1969 in London. I went on to have four more abortions and became a great proponent of it.
Then I found the Lord and saw the pictures of aborted babies. I realized all the professionals had lied to me. My story, told in my new book “Society’s Child: The Truth About the Lies,” includes the whole truth of the procedure, and how I was forgiven. Some women never come back from it.—Deborah Daniels-Switzer
Thanks to Cathy Harris for her brave testimonial about regretting her abortion. God bless her for stepping up to help others see the truth.—Jill Lagergren
Holding Leaker Accountable
Dear Daily Signal: I find myself totally appalled at the absence of personal honor among government employees entrusted with information that they have committed to keep private, either by contract or oath, as described in the commentary by John G. Malcolm and Zack Smith (“Could Supreme Court Leaker Be Criminally Prosecuted? Maybe”).
It would seem that any information that someone feels is politically appropriate to release can be released without any risk of punishment.
I am 86. In my 20s, 30s, and 40s, I was made privy to information that, by oath and agreement, I felt obligated to keep to myself. This obligation was further reinforced by the sure understanding that I would go to jail if I released the information.
Today, I see what I believed were my private financials at risk, subject to some IRS employee’s belief that I made too much money, at no apparent risk to that employee’s job. I watch the FBI and Justice Department release information in an attempt to bring down elected officials.
And now we have a release of private Supreme Court information, probably by a staff member, and find that no probable punishment exists. I know that Chief Justice John Roberts ordered an investigation of the leak, but this leaker, if found, will have a lifetime income from the party that the leak most benefited.
I retired from the Army Reserve with the rank of colonel. As one of thousands of us that did our duty in Korea, Vietnam, and, in some cases, holes in the ground; worked to send our kids to college; treated others as our Lord commanded and now are being spit upon daily, I needed to get this off my chest.—Dirk B. Freeman, Golden, Colo.
It appears as though the left has reached the highest level for its destructive attitude.
When you can reach the Supreme Court and someone within those sacred halls can report back to you and/or expose the justice who isn’t going to go along with your opinion, then you have reached your goal of lawlessness and a blatant disdain for the Constitution.
As of a few days ago, mission accomplished. The United States, as founded, is officially done. The doors of lawlessness are officially open and so is our southern border.
We are done, folks. Finished as a nation. Semper fi.—Josh Porte
Don’t let the crazy Democrats use the Supreme Court’s leaked abortion ruling to sway the electorate ahead of the mid-term elections.—Corsaro Nero
If the person who leaked this document is a lawyer, he should be disbarred for life.
If he is unable to abide by the confidentiality of the Supreme Court, then his ability to abide by client confidentiality is forever in question. Who would want this person as a lawyer, should his breach be known?—Kathy Vanderford, Fountain Inn, S.C.
Why do you posit that it was a Supreme Court law clerk or staff member who leaked the draft opinion? Given the damage to one’s career, particularly to the clerks who have prestigious careers before them, that seems unlikely.
What is more likely is that one of the associate justices is the source of the leak. There is little recourse for punishment in the system against a sitting justice. Your articles should recognize this possibility and not simply focus on the clerks.—Steve Alonso
It would seem, at the very least, that law clerks and for that matter any who work around Supreme Court justices or in the building be required to sign a nondisclosure agreement.
Although the Supreme Court rarely would decide a case that might be considered a national security threat, Congress should consider the threat of riots and/or personal harm to the justices as justification for some measure strong enough to deter future would-be leakers.
The Senate should have censured then-Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for his pontificating behavior on the steps of the Supreme Court.—Charles Williams
How was this draft opinion leaked? Who leaked it? We deserve to know the answers.—Steve Witcher
What to Do About Abortion
Dear Daily Signal: I support access to abortion in a model similar to Europe’s—up to a reasonable point in the pregnancy (“What I Saw Outside Supreme Court After Report Roe v. Wade to Be Overturned”).
I also support legislation at the state level rather than the strained logic of a federal court decision based on a 14th Amendment that had to do with bringing the Confederate states back into the Union. One can read the 14th amendment itself rather differently.
In my reading, and I am not a lawyer, all residents of a given state are equal under its laws and no state may prosecute a resident of another state who is following the laws of that other state.
New York would be free to have open abortion laws, same-sex marriage, and tight handgun laws, while Mississippi could have tight abortion laws, looser handgun laws, and not allow gay marriages.
But a Mississippi resident could travel to New York carrying a pistol (legal under Mississippi law) and get an abortion or be married in a gay wedding and then return to Mississippi and couldn’t be prosecuted in either New York or Mississippi. (If a 30-day stay was needed to establish residence in New York, the Mississippi resident would have to leave the gun at home.)
Similarly, a gay New York couple could travel to or move to Mississippi without fear of prosecution.
It is simply wrong for the liberals in New York City and San Francisco to force the rest of the country into one social model. If Roe is overturned, I expect almost all states to enact some sort of European-style “managed permission” quite quickly.
There will be a few outliers at either end of the spectrum, but that’s OK in what should be a pluralistic society.—Paul Levy, Carolina Beach, N.C.
Dear Daily Signal: I praise God for the Supreme Court’s draft majority decision. Yes, abortion is an abomination. No one has the right to commit murder, which is what abortion is.
As someone who has been involved in pro-life demonstrations, I pray that the ruling will not change.—Shira M. Levine, Minneapolis
It baffles me that the majority of Americans seem to have no concerns for the rights of the unborn human in the womb.
Thank you for Bruce Ashford’s “7 Reasons Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned.” They are reasons for us to internalize to help us have bridge-building conversations with persons who deny the rights of the unborn child.—Sister Dorothy Moczygemba
I wonder where this fear comes from that some of these groups talk about. From what I read and see, all that is going to happen is that this Supreme Court opinion would remove abortion from the federal arena and turn it over to each state to enforce or legislate.—Thomas Fugate
Thank God, people are waking up to the realization that all lives matter, born and unborn. So many have regrets for choices made in haste.
But remember this one thing: God in heaven cares about you and your unborn child. If you made a hasty decision and aborted your child, God can and will forgive you if you choose to ask for his forgiveness and walk the path he has chosen for you. Then you may rest in the knowledge that that sweet baby is in the arms of Jesus.—Gene Lanier
The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation.