Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE
For some reason, Bette Midler decided to take to Twitter to peddle some misinformation about Justice Alito’s leaked draft abortion-related Supreme Court opinion.
“#RoeVWade has been settled law, guaranteed by the Constitution for 50 years; the 14th Amendment to the document that is the foundation of our country’s laws. If they strike down this amendment, what is to stop them striking down others that conservatives don’t agree with?” the far-left actress/comedienne/singer wrote breathlessly on the social media platform as part of a chorus of those who are engaging in a certain degree of fear-mongering.
In the controversial 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, seven justices derived a privacy right in the due-process clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to justify a right to abortion throughout the country.
Justice Alito’s draft majority opinion, assuming it is ever finalized in its current form, would return the abortion-rights issue to each state. Many blue states, for example, will quickly pass statutes or take other measures to maintain the legality of the procedure in addition to whatever related laws are already on the books.
#RoeVWade has been settled law, guaranteed by the Constitution for 50 years; the 14th Amendment to the document that is the foundation of our country’s laws. If they strike down this amendment, what is to stop them striking down others that conservatives don’t agree with?
— bettemidler (@BetteMidler) May 3, 2022
The potential Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in no way whatsoever eviscerates the 14th Amendment itself, nor would it have any legal authority to do so.
It appears likely that the draft was leaked, in violation of high court protocol, to help galvanize the Democrat vote heading into the November elections. Some conservative influencers are describing that transgression as an actual insurrection.
Given the disastrous domestic and international policies under the Biden administration, perhaps Democrat operatives have concluded that they have nothing else.
No one would ever accuse Midler, 76, of being a constitutional scholar or even someone with a large reservoir of common sense especially since she has a history of saying dumb things on social media that appear to reflect elitist, Hollywood-style liberalism, which ironically results in a form of exclusion rather than inclusion.
Midler, once known as “the Divine Miss M” at the height of her show-business career, also appeared to be one of many relevance-desperate celebrities, or supposed celebrities, aggressively promoting the COVID-19 vaccine that seems to run counter to the liberal ‘my body, my choice’ philosophy.
— Bo Snerdley (@BoSnerdley) December 21, 2021
Unlike the uninformed Midler, progressive pundit Glenn Greenwald, one of the few active, intellectually honest left-wing journalists, has put the matter in perspective on Substack irrespective of one’s views on the pro-choice, pro-life debate:
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…
Even the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is celebrated as a champion of women’s rights and the pro-choice cause, reportedly expressed the view that Roe was too sweeping in its scope.
Apart from those who are participating in the mass hysteria that the pending decision is a harbinger of a rollback of various fundamental rights, Twitter users are ridiculing Midler for her off-key, less-than-divine claim. Here is a sample:
They can’t repeal an amendment, ma’am. It takes a supermajority of Congress and 3/4 of the states.
— Bob Richards (@BobRichards57) May 3, 2022
this is an amazingly bad take https://t.co/u2Bg0zdjGR
— Bad Constitutional Takes (@BadConstTakes) May 3, 2022
To be fair, “Separate but equal” was also settled law for 50+ years. Sometimes the Court gets things wrong and must eventually act to right said wrong.
— Secret Agent Whens (@SATWM) May 3, 2022
Plessis v Ferguson was also “settled law” that was overturned by Brown v Board of Education. If you truly believe in precedent, you HAVE to support Plessy. Why are you a racist? Obergfell also reversed one (u=homophone). There are dozens other examples.
— BananaPuddin’&Vodka🥳 (@SirLancey_Pants) May 3, 2022
The irony here: Associate Justice William O’Douglas, the last living FDR appointee, was notorious for not highly valuing judicial precedent (stare decisis) when deciding cases, and was part of the majority decision on Roe. He’s now viewed one of the historical liberal justices.
— Bobby Karle (@RobKarle) May 4, 2022
Overturning a supreme court ruling is not striking down an amendment.
SCOTUS has no authority to strike down amendments, that’s not how the constitution works.
— Nunyadambidnes (@cyberdeathninja) May 3, 2022
It doesn’t overturn legislation. It only overturns a prior ruling. You are correct that now each state has an opportunity to codify the legality of abortion with votes. Regardless where you stand in the issue this is how it should be.
— Taco Fan 🌮 (@atacoaday1) May 3, 2022
Abortion was never written in the Constitution so don’t try to paint yourself being a expert at the Constitution when you are speaking out of your ass. https://t.co/1wV231e9yf
— Edward 🇺🇸🇵🇭 (@Edward85191114) May 3, 2022
You do realize that’s not what they’re doing because they literally can’t, right?
The Supreme Court has no authority to “strike down” Constitutional amendments.
— Count Dibbula (@CountDibbula) May 3, 2022
1. 49 years. 2022- 1973 = 49.
2. No, it hasn’t.
3. It would, as it did before, revert back to the authority of the States.
You can’t even do math properly and yet you believe you can be a moral/ ethical voice over this issue.
— DadeLeeMurphy™ (@DADEZCMURPHY85) May 3, 2022
There’s a lot of emotion on the field. Wherever one is there is one thing to be sad about. How many Americans don’t know the difference between an Amendment and a court ruling. We really are doomed.
— newportironman (@newportironman) May 3, 2022
Says the woman who wants to strike down the 1st and 2nd amendments.
— Kevin Jackson (@KevinPJackson) May 3, 2022
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Eric Swalwell’s ‘authoritarian’ response to Tim Scott’s defense of parental rights says everything - November 10, 2022
- Law school student alleges professor humiliated her via an exam in revenge for her conservative views - November 10, 2022
- AOC blasts NY Democrat Party leadership after critical GOP wins blowup Dem supermajority - November 10, 2022
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.