We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Consider the following language from Justice Alito’s draft opinion in the Dobbs case:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. . .

At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court’s decisions. . .

For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. . .

Wait—did I say this was in Justice Alito’s Dobbs draft opinion? I mis-spoke. These passages appear in Justice Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v. Wade.

In other words, the original Roe language, held sacred by the left, allowed for restrictions on abortion. So how did it become in practice a writ for unlimited abortion on demand? The “exception” for the preservation of the life and health of the mother became the loophole through which abortion became virtually unlimited, as it is not difficult to find a doctor who will “find” that the “mental health” of a woman requires an abortion. (This is one reason why many European nations, which have stricter abortion regulations than the new Mississippi law will impose, require a second opinion before an abortion is granted outside the first 14 weeks.) It was a short step from this loophole to the 1992 Casey decision’s new but undefined “undue burden” standard that made Roe’s ambiguous language obsolete.

To be sure, Blackmun’s complete opinion in Roe is incoherent, but I don’t think most people who hold Roe sacred know of these passages in Blackmun’s opinion exist.