On this episode of The Federalist Radio Hour, Federalist Senior Editor Mollie Hemingway, Senior Editor Christopher Bedford, and Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky analyze the oral arguments presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and discuss why the pro-life movement is so invigorated ahead of a potentially monumental decision.
“I think the oral arguments … got out what Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about, what a lot of leftist scholars have talked about over the years in terms of the Supreme Court wresting this decision from the people, from the legislative branch, federally, and on a state basis,” Jashinsky said. “We are now looking back at decades of the courts making this decision and decades of it going very badly for the country because it’s decided by the courts. So if ever there were a moment for us to reckon with that failure, this seems to be it.”
Because of years of setbacks handed down in bad court decisions, Jashisnky, Bedford, and Hemingway agreed that the pro-life movement views Dobbs as a strong call to action.
“The Mississippi law limits abortion … that is in contrast to what Roe and Casey have said and so the Court either has to reaffirm this imaginary, not actually real, right to abortion, or it has to come up with something new,” Hemingway said.
“I think a lot of these different laws are really understood very loosely,” Bedford added. “I think there’s somewhat, especially in the left-wing press, a very loose understanding of what Dobbs is going to do.”
