Kavanaugh hits hard at pro-abortion side in landmark abortion case

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh didn’t pull any punches when questioning the attorneys litigating the case of United States v. Dobbs that came before the Supreme Court this week. 

According to Fox News, Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley, Kavanaugh, asked some of the hardest-hitting questions about the legal president behind the case based on the 1970s Roe v. Wade that brought abortion to the masses. 

Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, offered his thoughts about the oral arguments on the Mississippi abortion law case that challenges Roe v. Wade.

Turley explained on “The Faulkner Focus,” that the pro-choice side is likely not too happy that Kavanaugh is pressing them on Roe v. Wade:

“What I thought was most interesting was Kavanaugh. I think a lot of pro-choice supporters hope that he might, as he often does, tend to follow [Chief Justice John] Roberts,” Turley said. 

“He was very hard-hitting in a lot of his questions about the basis for [Roe v. Wade]. And also some very substantial reductions on Roe and Casey. So I think that pro-choice folks will probably be disappointed in what they heard from Kavanaugh today. 

Kavanaugh’s loyalty to the pro-life cause has been questioned in recent years during his short tenure on the bench after he ruled I a way that many conservatives didn’t appreciate previously. However, the justice claimed that he could rule in a pro-life manner due to the nature of past cases, and the precedent it would set. 

“It seems like Kavanaugh was really sort of pressing again on the basis for Roe, and also whether they should keep the the the standard of the viability line,” Turley went on.

“And he was really delivering some haymakers to the pro-choice side as to some of their claims. [Justice Amy Coney] Barrett did the same thing in saying that you often talk about the burden of raising a child, but isn’t it true you can put up the child for adoption? So is it really fair to put that on the scale as we balance the interests in this case? She returned to that at least three times. And I think that’s quite notable.