From the moment the news of Roe v. Wade getting over turned broke on Friday, CNN Newsroom’s panel of partisan hacks and fake journalists feverishly started spewing all kinds of doomsday-saying nonsense. Between legal analyst Jennifer Rodger literally tearing up and claiming women won’t “have the right to track their own cycles,” and chief masturbation expert Jeffrey Toobin wailing “the originalists are winning,” the network was off the rails from the start.
“Standby, Jeffrey. We do have breaking news just in to CNN,” co-host Jim Sciutto announced, getting so quiet you could hear a pin drop on set. “The Supreme Court has just issued – and this is the decision many were waiting for, ruling in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization. This the major case regarding abortion rights in this country.”
Correspondent Jessica Schneider soon made her first appearance to deliver the news “this nation has been bracing for,” grimly reporting “they have eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion.” And continuing to use the false claim that there’s a “right” to kill a baby, co-host Poppy Harlow joined in: “This is a Court that's just upended a half-century of law, of a constitutionally protected right to abortion.”
It didn’t take long for things to get dark as Harlow used Chief Justice Robert’s own words to deliver a warning to the court. “[A]s he said just three years, four years ago, -- Roberts – courts sometimes get in trouble when they sweep more broadly than necessary,” she said just weeks after a liberal extremist tried to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh.
Mere moments after being brought on the air, Rodgers called the ruling “a heartbreaking betrayal” and nearly broke down crying. “I'm sorry I’m getting -- watching the women there. It's emotional.”
And in her compromised state, she immediately started cooking up all sorts of made-up situations in her mind about what horrors were supposedly coming. She asserted states would confiscate women’s phones because “there's apps that track menstrual cycles. How far are the states going the try to go in criminalizing every single aspect of women trying to control their reproductive rights?”
“We're talking about a period of chaos here where women not only can't be confident that they can get an abortion but can't even be sure that they have the right to track their own cycles,” she irrationally proclaimed.
And despite admitting that the opinion written by Justice Alito limited their reasoning to just Roe and abortion, Harlow and legal analyst/Supreme Court biographer Joan Biskupic teamed up to suggest the Court was gunning to end rights such as interracial marriage and consensual acts in the bedroom:
HARLOW: This can have implications way beyond abortion. If you look back to all of these other cases, Loving vs Virginia, interracial racial marriage; Griswald, the right to obtain contraception; Lawrence vs Texas, the right to engage in private consensual sexual acts; Obergefell vs. Hodge [sic], the right to same-sex marriage.
What does this decision by the court in this way it's written, despite what Alito also says, this doesn't affect anything else? Legally, it can be used to undermine those rights, correct?
BISKUPIC: Of course. People are going to seize upon the basic holding here that talks about the right to abortion not being in the Constitution.
So, are they essentially arguing that Justice Clarence Thomas is trying to sabotage his interracial marriage?
“Amy Coney Barrett joined in October of 2020. Less than two years we’ve gone when this majority has seized this moment,” Biskupic lashed out at Justice Barrett. “Chief Justice John Roberts would have been ready to overturn Roe at some point, but not so quickly. And this was only because of the death of Ruth Badger Ginsburg and the succession of Any Coney Barrett.”
And shortly before going to a commercial break, Harlow read from the dissent, saying, “One result from today’s decision is certain the curtailment of women's rights and their status as free and equal citizens.” And with that, she proclaimed that the conservative justices weren’t interesting in protecting anyone, but rather “This was decided on a right to or lack of a right to privacy. It was not decided on equal protection grounds.”
And on the more grounded side, Toobin (who once tried to force a woman to get an abortion) whined how "The originalists are winning. And they won yesterday, at least that's how Justice Thomas raised his opinion in the guns case."
This ridiculousness was made possible because of lucrative sponsorships from ClearChoice and ADT. Their contact information is linked.
The transcript is below, click "expand" to read:
CNN Newsroom
June 24, 2022
10:11:10 a.m. EasternJIM SCIUTTO: Standby, Jeffrey. We do have breaking news just in to CNN.
JEFFREY TOOBIN: Dobbs.
SCIUTTO: The Supreme Court has just issued – and this is the decision many were waiting for, ruling in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization. This the major case regarding abortion rights in this country.
Jeffrey Toobin still with us as we wait to read this decision.
(…)
10:13:10 a.m. Eastern
JESSICA SCHNEIDER: The court issuing that landmark ruling that this nation has been bracing for and the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade. That they have eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion. And at first glance, this opinion is very similar to that draft opinion that we saw leaked just about a month and a half ago at the beginning of May.
(…)
10:16:33 a.m. Eastern
POPPY HARLOW: This is a court that's just upended a half-century of law, of a constitutionally protected right to abortion. It affects nearly every family across America in one way or another.
(…)
10:18:53 a.m. Eastern
SCIUTTO: We know, the Chief Justice, who you have written a biography about favored slower movement rather than quick movement when it comes to precedents like this. Tell us about the split in this decision here as it reflects that?
JOAN BISKUPIC: That's exactly right, Jim. This decision was essentially 5-1-3, with the one being Chief Justice John Roberts concurring, in part, to say he would have upheld with the majority, the Mississippi ban on abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy. But he would have not taken this leap to overturn Roe v. Wade.
And this is significant because chief justice John Roberts has never favored abortion rights but he has wanted to protect the institution of the Supreme Court and to reinforce the adherence to precedent, the regard for precedent, which is the corner stone of the Supreme Court's work. What he said here is, yes to uphold Mississippi but this is such a big change for America and this is the Roberts court.
HARLOW: It is. And Joan, as he said just three years, four years ago, Roberts courts sometimes get in trouble when they sweep more broadly than necessary.
(…)
10:22:27 a.m. Eastern
JENNIFER RODGERS: Listen, it's a heartbreaking betrayal of half of the country. I'm sorry I’m getting -- watching the women there. It's emotional.
It's a real problem. And people are talking about privacy issues. Can s who is are trying to criminalize abortion not just to the women getting them but doctors providing them, of people driving them to the clinic, are they going to be able to search your apps. There's apps that track menstrual cycles. How far are the states going the try to go in criminalizing every single aspect of women trying control their reproductive rights?
And that’s where it gets scary because we don't know what states will try to do. And as Jeff says, it's going to be a patchwork and it’s going to lead to laws where they try to really invade people's privacy in unprecedented ways. And then those will have to be challenged and work their way through the court.
We're talking about a period of chaos here where women not only can't be confident that they can get an abortion but can't even be sure that they have the right to track their own cycles.
(…)
10:27:49 a.m. Eastern
TOOBIN: It really goes to the conception of the Constitution and what the constitution means and how it should be interpreted.
The conservatives are, for the most part, what they call “originalists.” Who believe the Constitution should be interpreted as the people who ratified it in the late 18th century understood the words to mean. And as the justice Alito opinion says the Constitution doesn't mention abortion so there's no right to abortion. That's the end of the story, to him.
Other justices feel that the Constitution has to be interpreted in light of how the society has changed and sometimes described as a living Constitution and abortion rights was certain– Roe v. Wade and the decisions ratifying it – certainly it was a decision that was based on a living conception of the Constitution.
The originalists are winning. And they won yesterday, at least that's how Justice Thomas raised his opinion in the guns case. But, you know, again, it depends how cynical you are about how the Supreme Court works. Some justices want to reach one result or reach another result and find a justification. But certainly as an interpretive matter, the difference between originalism and a living constitution is what this debate over abortion and the supreme court is about.
(…)
10:29:48 a.m. Eastern
HARLOW: This is way beyond – This is way beyond – This can have implications way beyond abortion. If you look back to all of these other cases, Loving vs Virginia, interracial racial marriage; Griswald, the right to obtain contraception; Lawrence vs Texas, the right to engage in private consensual sexual acts; Obergefell vs. Hodge [sic], the right to same-sex marriage.
What does this decision by the court in this way it's written, despite what Alito also says, this doesn't affect anything else? Legally, it can be used to undermine those rights, correct?
BISKUPIC: Of course. People are going to seize upon the basic holding here that talks about the right to abortion not being in the Constitution. But you mention Griswald vs Connecticut, from 1965. That was when the court said there's a privacy right embodied in the 14th Amendment that covers couples, including married couples’ ability to get contraceptives. That is what Roe is built upon.
And it's so interesting to think about how the justices talked even about Griswald. Some of you might remember that Amy Coney Barrett whose vote has made this whole thing possible today, she wouldn't even endorse Griswald and the right to contraceptives at her hearing.
And I think she showed us what she was going to do even though she had not pre-judged Roe. But this was coming. And I think you're absolutely right, Poppy, that this opens the door to many other challenges.
And one last thing I mentioned about this court. Amy Coney Barrett joined in October of 2020. Less than two years we’ve gone when this majority has seized this moment. Chief Justice John Roberts would have been ready to overturn Roe at some point, but not so quickly. And this was only because of the death of Ruth Badger Ginsburg and the succession of Any Coney Barrett.
(…)
10:42:49 a.m. Eastern
HARLOW: A little bit more from the dissent. Quote, “One result from today’s decision is certain the curtailment of women's rights and their status as free and equal citizens.” That's the dissent – that is part of this result.
This was not decided on equal protection grounds. This was decided on a right to or lack of a right to privacy. It was not decided on equal protection grounds.
(…)
