On MSNBC’s The 11th Hour, host Stephanie Ruhle and two of her guests NYU Law professor Melissa Murray and Washington Post reporter Phillip Rucker lost what’s left of their minds over the news that the Supreme Court could be overturning Roe v Wade, according to a leaked decision obtained by Politico.
Ruhle went to Murray for comment on an excerpt of the apparent court decision which states
“The constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”
Murray predictably took issue with that opinion claiming it's something “conservatives like to talk about incessantly” and that “there are a lot of things that they hold sacrosanct that are not explicit in the constitution either” like “executive privilege” or “qualified immunity.”
She then attempted to defend the universal right to abortion and how unprecedented it is that the court could take away that right:
This idea that there are liberties, including the right to determine how your body will be used to not make these choices under the compulsion of the state. We don't hear about that. And again, I can't even express the magnitude of this decision. This is not just overturning Roe vs Wade, that's actually withdrawing a right that had previously been conferred. We have never done anything like that in the history of this country.
Murray also parroted a line that was used by resident CNN pervert Jeffrey Toobin that overturning Roe wouldn’t return the issue to the states because “we've already seen Missouri enact or proposed a law that would make it a crime to leave the state or deny individuals the opportunity to leave the state to seek abortion care elsewhere.”
Next, she despicably compared overturning Roe and leaving abortion up to the states to states banning interracial marriage claiming “this is something that happened in the days when interracial marriage was prohibited. It could be a crime to actually leave the state to transact an interracial marriage” Murray wailed, “we are going to see not a state-by-state settlement of this, but actually more inter-jurisdictional conflict over abortion and the withdrawal of a right that many Americans have come to take for granted at this point.”
Ruhle then turned to deputy national editor Philip Rucker to optimistically ask if the Supreme Court overturinging Roe could “end up blowing up and Republicans' face[s]?” Rucker suggested it could energize Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.
Rucker then turned himself into a pretzel to speculate that a win for Republicans on abortion could open the door for them to ban same-sex marriage in the future:
Republicans could take away other rights as well. There is language in this draft opinion that eludes to gay rights and eludes to same-sex marriage and other social values and rights that are very near and dear to Democrats and to the Progressive base.
Hopefully, Rucker didn’t hurt himself too badly twisting himself into knots with all that twisted logic. It’s clear the leftist media will do or say anything to protect their precious “abortion rights.”
This segment was made possible by Angie. Their information is linked.
To read the relevant transcript click “expand”:
MSNBC’s The 11th Hour
5/2/2022
11:12:39 p.m. EasternSTEPHANIE RUHLE: Melissa, I want to go to page five of the draft, it says that the constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision. Can you explain this to us?
MELISSA MURRAY: So this is something that conservatives like to talk about incessantly. This idea of quote-unquote, enumerated rights. Rights that are explicit in the text of the constitution. What they don't say is that there are a lot of things that they hold sacrosanct that are not explicit in the constitution either. Executive privilege, for example, or qualified immunity. Which we've heard about ad nauseum over the last two years. None of those things is explicit in the text of the constitution, yet the court has recognized them. So there are a range of different rights and principles that are implicit, but not necessarily explicit in the constitution and one of these things the court has said in its past is abortion.
This idea that there are liberties, including the right to determine how your body will be used to not make these choices under the compulsion of the state. We don't hear about that. And again, I can't even express the magnitude of this decision. This is not just overturning Roe vs Wade, that's actually withdrawing a right that had previously been conferred. We have never done anything like that in the history of this country. And this may pretend to put this off on the states to make their own decisions, but we've already seen Missouri enact or proposed a law that would make it a crime to leave the state or deny individuals the opportunity to leave the state to seek abortion care elsewhere. And this is something that happened in the days when interracial marriage was prohibited. It could be a crime to actually leave the state to transact an interracial marriage. We are going to see not a state-by-state settlement of this, but actually more inter-jurisdictional conflict over abortion and the withdrawal of a right that many Americans have come to take for granted at this point.
RUHLE: Phil, could this big win for Republicans end up being, be careful what you wish for. Year after year, they incessantly campaign on this, because it brings out evangelical single-issue voters. But when you add in the majority of Republicans and swing voters, undecided voters. The overwhelming majority of this country do not want a ban on abortion. So could this end up blowing up and Republicans' face?
PHILIP RUCKER: It could potentially Stephanie. And here’s something to think about, it’s not just the Supreme Court decision but anti-abortion activists are planning and my colleague at the Washington Post Caroline Kitchener has a great piece on this out this morning. Are planning to move even further, to try to advocate for a federal ban on all abortions. After six weeks by the congress. And so if Republicans were to win majorities in the House and the Senate their leadership would come under extraordinary pressure from activists in their own party that push forward that kind of legislation. But that is the kind of legislation that as you know is unpopular with the broader American public. And it could serve the purpose of really cutting into Republican support politically. And you should look to see Democrats try to take advantage of this court ruling if in fact this is how the court is gonna end up ruling on abortion. To warn that Republicans could take away other rights as well. There is language in this draft opinion that eludes to gay rights and eludes to same-sex marriage and other social values and rights that are very near and dear to Democrats and to the Progressive base. And I think they can use this court ruling, or at least will try to use this court ruling, as a way to galvanize their own voters ahead of the midterm elections.
