Supreme Court Has Decided to Overturn Roe v. Wade, Leaked Opinion Suggests

A document that Politico describes as an “initial draft majority opinion” written by Justice Samuel Alito suggests the Supreme Court has decided to strike down Roe v. Wade, the seminal precedent that in 1973 wrested the regulation of abortion from the states and made the procedure lawful throughout the entire United States.

The leaking of the document, assuming the document is genuine and that it was in fact leaked, constitutes an unprecedented breach of Supreme Court protocol.

In a 2,400-word article time-stamped 8:32 p.m. on May 2, Politico describes the draft opinion as “a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision–Planned Parenthood v. Casey–that largely maintained the right.” The opinion is 67 pages long, followed by a 31-page appendix.

The unauthorized public disclosure of the draft opinion is likely to make public debate over the most controversial case of the current Supreme Court term even more impassioned.

The Politico article does not state exactly how the outlet came by the document, leading to speculation about its source. The article states Politico received a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court’s proceedings in a pending challenge to a Mississippi abortion law, along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document.

Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, who said he opposes Roe being reversed, told Fox News he couldn’t recall a Supreme Court opinion ever being leaked to the media.

“I have a theory, and it’s only a theory. I think this was leaked by a liberal law clerk who was trying to change the outcome of the case, either by putting pressure on some of the justices to change their mind, or by getting Congress to pack the court even before June, which is very unlikely, or to get Congress to pass a national right-to-abortion law, which would apply to all the states,” Dershowitz said.

The influential SCOTUSblog website weighed in on Twitter, writing on May 2 at 9:07 p.m.: “It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.”

The document Politico bases its article on is an apparent photocopy of an original document that is marked “1st Draft” and that indicates it was circulated among the other justices on Feb. 10, 2022. It is unclear if the draft opinion has been changed since Feb. 10. Justices often change their minds in deliberations as they attempt to win over other members of the court to their point of view.

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito states in the document.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito writes in the document, which is labeled as “the opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The draft begins: “Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman’s right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortions should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.”

The purported draft opinion on the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, court file 19-1392, a challenge by the only state-licensed abortion clinic in Mississippi to the state’s Gestational Age Act, which allows abortions after 15 weeks’ gestation only for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormality. Citing Roe, lower courts held the state statute was unconstitutional.

As The Epoch Times reported five months ago, during oral arguments Dec. 1, 2021, the Supreme Court seemed generally open to the possibility of answering Mississippi’s call to scuttle Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade is “an egregiously wrong decision,” Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart said during oral arguments, appearing to foreshadow Alito’s words in the draft document.

“Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey haunt our country,” Stewart said, referencing Roe’s companion ruling from 1992, which held states can’t impose significant restrictions on abortion before a fetus becomes viable for life outside the womb, somewhere around the 24-week gestation mark.

“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. For 50 years, they’ve kept this court at the center of a political battle that it can never resolve. And 50 years on, they stand alone. Nowhere else does this court recognize a right to end a human life.”

The Dobbs case is the first direct challenge to Roe in the high court since Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment on Oct. 26, 2020, gave the court’s nominally conservative wing a 6–3 majority. Some conservative court observers argue the conservative-to-liberal split is more like 5-4 because they consider Chief Justice John Roberts to be a moderate or even a liberal because he frequently sides with liberal justices when the court seems on the verge of overturning a precedent disliked by conservatives. Barrett replaced the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died the previous Sept. 18.

Ginsburg was a defender of abortion but she spoke out about the problems she saw with the Roe decision. For example, at a May 11, 2013 appearance at University of Chicago Law School, she said her “criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change.” It would have been better if abortion rights had been brought about more gradually, preferably in a process that included state legislatures and courts, she said. Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

Matthew Vadum

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative journalist and a recognized expert in left-wing activism.
Please follow and like us:

20 thoughts on “Supreme Court Has Decided to Overturn Roe v. Wade, Leaked Opinion Suggests”

    1. NOW, every damn voter has to DEMAND this video be shown before congress. I give not a darn about the majority running things. WE the People are the majority. MAKE THEM SHOW IT!

  1. Here she is, your new leftist mental case actress MINISTER (mistress) OF TRUTH telling you it’s liberals being censored on the media, not conservatives. Try to control your gag reflex. Once again, we wander in the Leftistland….a place where nightmares come true on a roller coaster to hell. “When you wish upon a black hole, makes no difference who you are, anything the dark desires will come to you”.

  2. Here’s a very sensible article that may be the logical answer….possibly the only answer….to the level of corruption in the federal government we are now experiencing and have seen for gawd knows how many years….AND from all I know, it’s certainly within the power of We the People who are NOT having our grievances addressed OR EVEN RECOGNIZED.

    “There is no manifest line in the Constitution that guides the distribution of power between the federal government and the state governments. In the Federalist Papers, Publius argues that the question will be decided by citizens about where to place power, and their judgment will turn on competency in administration. This process inevitably will be a deliberative one, influenced by elections, arguments, and results.”

  3. I know this is off-topic for this Comment but its an ongoing source of study on this blog of Dr. Fetzer’s.
    I am so darn frustrated. People say my photo File is an actor. Ok, he’s an actor….so what’s his name? All actors have names…such as John Wayne or Judy Garland [plus they have a real birth name besides a stage-name.]

    I have spent hours counting the lines in his forehead and around the eyes. The lines on his face always come out the same numbers….even from many years ago! Several people here always give us the same answer….”actor” but no links or proof of anything. It must be some sort of opinion, therefore not a fact. I need links and references so I can post it elsewhere.

    Will Two has great skills of research but has never given any documentation of who this ”Joe Biden” really is as an actor…such as his name and his professional actor training.


    1. Don, First of all, I, Will Two, did not originate the Biden doppelganger theory. Jim is the man who has done all the research. As I remember he presented you with much evidence you never addressed. Dr. Fetzer is the man to whom your inquiry should be addressed, not I. If I said the present Biden is without doubt an imposture, that was a mistake to which I own up. My intention has always been that the possibility exists. Having not done the research myself, I cannot say 100%. There is an endless history of world leaders using doubles for many purposes….likely dating back thousands of years. Quite frankly, the idea that an actor needs a name is ridiculous. If an actor was being used for this purpose, do you not think the name would be very well hidden to any research? What about all the actors at Sandy Hook? Do you have all their names? AND, to say the double/actor is not possible because he has never been identified is equally ridiculous. You reasoning is flawed, I am sorry to say.

      1. Will two, I must say you are a notorious fence sitter if there ever was one. You always want it both ways and you did tout the the ‘doppelganger” story several times. Yes, we have all the names of the Sandy Hook actors. BTW all SH actors have a name. I never heard of one that did not….have you.? Your thoughts are flawed on these points.
        I addressed all of the ”evidence” that Jim presented. Maybe you missed my comments.
        Yes, world leaders do use doubles, usually for a day but not for years and decades.
        Keep up your research, you’re doing well.
        My son, Nikita, has a new baby and I must get back to my email to them. Ta-Ta.

  4. The timing of this leak lines up pretty well with the soldout release of 2,000 Mules. And the push to prosecute Trump once again.

    1. Absolutely, Dave. I know longer have any doubt this was the purpose. Check out this interview between Giuliani and D’Souza…..goes into major detail re that movie. If there is no uproar once this movie gets around, whatever is coming down the pike is deserved. Remember, this in only one method the thieves used.

  5. Best news I have heard all day:

    Hunter’s Laptop: Adam Schiff, CNN, Politico And Daily Beast Sued By Repairman Who Blew Whistle

    “John Paul Mac Isaac, who lost his business and endured harassment for 18 months after being falsely accused of peddling Russian disinformation, is suing Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), along with news outlets CNN, The Daily Beast and Politico.”

    “This was collusion led by 51 former pillars in the intelligence community and backed by words and actions of a politically motivated DOJ and FBI,” he continued, ostensibly referring to an October 19, 2020 Politico article by Natasha Bertrand in which more than 50 former senior intelligence officials say the laptop disclosure “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

    “I want this lawsuit to reveal that collusion and more importantly, who gave the marching orders,” he continued.

    ME…Wanna bet they settle??

  6. And so it begins….the left will find any excuse to distract from the TRUTH that is emerging in all aspects….the stolen election, the covid genocide, the fake January 6th insurrection, phony charges against Trump, the Ukraine debacle, the Afghanistan debacle, a demented Biden, a catastrophe at the border, a catastrophe at the pumps and on and on and on….

    Cops Attacked, Windows Smashed During ‘Roe V Wade’ Protest In LA

  7. Roe VS Wade may arguably be the most controversial SCOTUS ruling of all time. The following article by Glenn Greenwald brings some excellent clarity to the original ruling itself and the usual nonsense the left is spewing in objection to the new ruling overturning Roe. Is it not more than odd this case comes to the forefront as we find ourselves on the verge of WW III. Following the link is an important section of the article:

    “The reaction to Monday night’s news that the Court intends to overrule Roe was immediately driven by all of these common fallacies. It was bizarre to watch liberals accuse the Court of acting “undemocratically” as they denounced the ability of “five unelected aristocrats” — in the words of Vox’s Ian Millhiser — to decide the question of abortion rights. Who do they think decided Roe in the first place?

    Indeed, Millhiser’s argument here — unelected Supreme Court Justices have no business mucking around in abortion rights — is supremely ironic given that it was unelected judges who issued Roe back in 1973, in the process striking down numerous democratically elected laws. Worse, this rhetoric perfectly echoes the arguments which opponents of Roe have made for decades: namely, it is the democratic process, not unelected judges, which should determine what, if any, limits will be placed on the legal ability to provide or obtain an abortion. Indeed, Roe was the classic expression of the above-described anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values: seven unelected men (for those who believe such demographic attributes matter) struck down laws that had been supported by majorities and enacted by many states which heavily restricted or outright banned abortion procedures. The sole purpose of Roe was to deny citizens the right to enact the anti-abortion laws, no matter how much popular support they commanded.

    This extreme confusion embedded in heated debates over the Supreme Court was perhaps most vividly illustrated last night by Waleed Shahid, the popular left-wing activist, current spokesman for the left-wing group Justice Democrats, and previously a top aide and advisor to Squad members including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Shahid — who, needless to say, supports Roe — posted a quote from Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address, in 1861, which Shahid evidently believes supports his view that Roe must be upheld.

    But the quote from Lincoln — warning that the Court must not become the primary institution that decides controversial political questions — does not support Roe at all; indeed, Lincoln’s argument is the one most often cited in favor of overruling Roe. In fact, Lincoln’s argument is the primary one on which Alito relied in the draft opinion to justify overruling Roe: namely, that democracy will be imperiled, and the people will cease to be their own rulers, if the Supreme Court, rather than the legislative branches, ends up deciding hot-button political questions such as abortion about which the Constitution is silent. Here’s the version of the Lincoln pro-democracy quote, complete with bolded words, that Shahid posted, apparently in the belief that it somehow supports upholding Roe:

    It is just inexplicable to cite this Lincoln quote as a defense of Roe. Just look at what Lincoln said: “if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, [then] the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.” That is exactly the argument that has been made by pro-life activists for years against Roe, and it perfectly tracks Alito’s primary view as defended in his draft opinion.

    Alito’s decision, if it becomes the Court’s ruling, would not itself ban abortions. It would instead lift the judicial prohibition on the ability of states to enact laws restricting or banning abortions. In other words, it would take this highly controversial question of abortion and remove it from the Court’s purview and restore it to federal and state legislatures to decide it. One cannot defend Roe by invoking the values of democracy or majoritarian will. Roe was the classic case of a Supreme Court ruling that denied the right of majorities to decide what laws should govern their lives and their society.

    One can defend Roe only by explicitly defending anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values: namely, that the abortion question should be decided by a panel of unelected judges, not by the people or their elected representatives. The defense of democracy invoked by Lincoln, and championed by Shahid, can be used only to advocate that this abortion debate should be returned to the democratic processes, which is precisely what Alito argued (emphasis added):

    Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Some believe fervently that a human person comes into being at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. Others feel just as strongly that any regulation of abortion invades a woman’s right to control her own body and prevents women from achieving full equality. Still others in a third group think that abortion should be allowed under some but not all circumstances, and those within this group hold a variety of views about the particular restrictions that should be imposed.

    For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade….At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. In the years prior to that decision, about a third of the States had liberalized their laws, but Roe abruptly ended that political process. It imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire Nation, and it effectively struck down the abortion laws of every single State. As Justice Byron White aptly put it in his dissent, the decision Court represented the “exercise of raw judicial power,” 410 U. S., at 222….

    Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences…..It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 979 (Scalia, J, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what tho Constitution and the rule of law demand.”

  8. Like all legal decisions that have been made on the basis of politicalization rather than the rule of law itself, this Roe decision has been waiting for its overturn from the very beginning. But the return to the rule of law in and for the country doesn’t stop there. The Roe decision was based on earlier decisions which surreptitiously – i.e., intentionally – moved this nation further into the camp of being a democracy rather than a republic – more specifically, a federal constitutional republic. I refer to a specious legalistic attitude called ‘incorporation,’ whereby the 14th Amendment was supposed to have turned the nation’s rule of law on its head and made our rights and powers emanate from the FEDERAL government TO the States. Recall that the First Amendment opens with the words: “Congress shall make no law respecting” etc. The Bill of Rights is a list of examples of rights and powers not being ceded to the federal government to have any jurisdiction over; its being a government of LIMITED and DELEGATED powers – “few and defined,” in the rather authoritative words of the man fairly called the Father of the Constitution, James Madison. The 14th, in the wake of the Civil War, and in having the federal government tell the States what they could and could not do, refers to some specific issues, is not a wholesale overturning of the spirit of a federal system of government into a centralized one. Thus, our ‘First Amendment rights’ are an example of rights not under the aegis of the federal government. Our basic rights in this country need to be codified, under the rule of law, in our State constitutions. And just like an issue like abortion is legally, in this federal system of government, an individual State’s Rights issue, so are all the other basic social factors in our society.
    Overweening concern for ‘precedent’ is a dangerous device, and attitude. If a judicial decision is wrong, it needs to be overturned just as soon as possible. Full stop. Especially if it has been made with a devious, political intention in mind. As has happened in this country; with people who want centralized powers – the easier to overturn us with, my dears – having been at work for years, with their beady, termite-like eyes steadily on the outcome, so that they can exercise Power Over Others. Or POO for short. They must not be given that power. It is the reverse image of The Real Thing. Which, in actual fact, we are coming to; and in part, because of their machinations having unfolded it from the realm of the potential. So we can give them that credit, at least.; in a Reconciliation Process to unfold. Here at the end of one Age, and the beginning of Another. And this one being a biggie.

    1. Stan, that was an absolutely brilliant comment. I disagree with little, if any. I would add that as long as SCOTUS is a politically appointed court, decisions will always be politically motivated…except in very rare cases. A way to over come this would be to make judges an elected position with no attachment to political parties AND a position for a certain number of years….certainly not for life.

      The federal government has gone far, far beyond the founding fathers intentions. It must be reined in OR totally abolished and replaced by an entity in tune with todays world.

  9. Just when the Democrats were in desperation mode, SCOTUS may snatch victory from defeat for them.

    Overturning Roe v. Wade would give rights to a fetus less than 20 weeks ones never accorded in centuries of common law. It would also defy all the neurological and viability evidence collected for over a century.

    If a fetus isn’t a person, there is no right of the government under the Constitution of the United States to force someone to undertake the risk of pregnancy. (Mortality and severe morbidity from pregnancy is unfortunately greater than 2%.) If a fetus is a person, then it should be accorded all the legal rights of a person, which would so complicate our civil and criminal law that no state has even come close to doing so. One either is a person or isn’t–there is no in-between. If the right to limit abortions less than 20 weeks (or totally) is granted, SCOTUS is basically concluding that a fetus is a person–but on WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS?


Leave a Reply