Notre Dame Law Professor: Supreme Court Will Overturn Roe, It Could be Gone by Summer

National   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Dec 3, 2021   |   12:51PM   |   Washington, DC

How encouraging was the Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday concerning a Mississippi law that bans abortions?  Two former law clerks for Justice Samuel Alito say if the comments from justices are any indication, the Supreme Court is ready to overturn Roe and it could be gone by next summer.

Professor Sherif Girgis is an Associate Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School and a former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito. He told LifeNews that he expected SCOTUS to reverse Roe when it issues its decision in the Dobbs case next year.

“Across the political spectrum, many close court-watchers who would’ve said at 9:59 a.m. that there is no chance the Court fully reverses Roe are now saying that’s the likeliest outcome,” he said.

” The Chief repeatedly asked if there was a middle ground, and no one produced one.  On the contrary, the lawyers for the Biden administration and the clinics repeatedly rejected any middle ground.  Justice Kavanaugh repeatedly signaled that he thinks abortion is entirely for the states to decide.  Justice Barrett showed that the availability of adoption undercuts many of the arguments for a constitutional abortion right,” Professor Girgis told

“I would be very surprised if Roe survived the summer,” he concluded.

Please follow on Gab for the latest pro-life news and info, free from social media censorship.

Megan Wold, a legal expert and attorney practicing appellate and constitutional law, is also a former Alito law clerk. She is the former Deputy Solicitor General for the State of Ohio and Wold agrees with Professor Girgis’ assessment.

She said that, during the oral arguments, “the justices signaled that Roe was wrongly decided as an original matter; that Roe has been undermined by subsequent scientific and legal developments; that the Constitution is silent on the question of abortion; and that no right to abortion exists in our country’s history and tradition. These views support overruling Roe.  ”

“Moreover, no Justice proposed a new standard to replace Roe, and six justices suggested a willingness to eliminate Roe’s key viability holding.  It is clear that the court is likely to substantially weaken Roe, or more likely, to overrule Roe altogether,” Wold observed.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made it clear during today’s hearing on a Mississippi pro-life law banning abortions at 15 weeks that there is no right to abortion in the Constitution.

Thomas questioned Wednesday where in the Constitution abortion is protected as the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over a Mississippi abortion law case that challenges Roe v. Wade.

“Would you specifically tell me, specifically state what the right is, is it specifically abortion? Is it a liberty? Is it liberty? Is it autonomy? Is it privacy?” Thomas asked.

He knew full well the Constitution affords no right to abortion, but wanted to see where the pro-abortion attorney would make it up.

“The right is grounded in the liberty component of the 14th Amendment, Justice Thomas. But I think that it promotes interest in autonomy, bodily integrity, liberty and equality. And I do think it is specifically the right to abortion here, the right of a woman to be able to control, without the state forcing her to continue a pregnancy, whether to carry that baby to term,” one of the lawyers challenging the Mississippi law said.

Thomas pressed further knowing that the pro-abortion lawyer didn’t cite anything in the Constitution protecting a so-called right to kill babies in abortions.

“I understand we’re talking about abortion here,” Thomas said. “But what is confusing is that we, if we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we’re talking about. If we’re talking about the Fourth Amendment I know what we’re talking about because it’s written there. What specifically is the right here that we’re talking about?”

“It’s the right of a woman prior to viability to control whether to continue with a pregnancy,” the lawyer replied, still without finding any Constitutional basis for abortion.

The irony is that the attorney used the 14th Amendment to justify abortion, but that’s the amendment that protects the right to life.