Sen. Lindsey Graham said on Sunday that the Supreme Court created a ‘constitutional right that doesn’t exist’ when it made the right to an abortion the law of the land with Roe v. Wade in 1973.
Graham’s comment comes nearly a week after the nation was plunged into an abortion-rights debate when a Supreme Court draft decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was leaked on Monday.
Roe v. Wade created a constitutional right that doesn’t exist in the written constitution,’ Graham said to Bret Baier on Fox News Sunday, ‘It’s created division from the first day it was decided until now.’
The overturning of Roe v. Wade would strip women of a nationwide right to an abortion – instead leaving it to individual states to rule on its legality.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it is expected that at least 18 states could rule to fully ban abortion, and another eight could institute partial bans.
The leaked decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, called Roe v. Wade ‘egregiously wrong from the start.’
‘Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division,’ Alito wrote, also citing the 1994 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld Roe v. Wade.
The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,’ wrote Alito.
Graham spoke in favor of Alito’s decision in the interview on Sunday, expressing ‘hope’ for a repeal of abortion rights.
‘If it does get repealed, which I hope it will, the issue will go back to the states,’ said Graham on Sunday, ‘The abortion debate will not go away in the country, it will be decided by the people, not a handful of judges.’
In the week since the Supreme Court leak, protests for and against abortion rights have raged across the country, blindsided democrats have been slinging blame at one another over the decision, and republicans have begun rubbing their hands together over the prospect of a nation-wide abortion ban.
Leading democratic strategist and former advisor to the Clintons, James Carville, said on Thursday that conservatives struck down Roe v. Wade while democrats were busy arguing over ‘veganism and pronouns.’
Today they [Republicans] have no fear of Democrats, that’s why they do this,’ Carville told CNN OutFront’s Erin Burnett, ‘You gotta’ understand what a huge event this is in American politics … Roe v. Wade is is over two-to-one in approval.’
‘And Alito and them said we don’t care. We’re not fair, and we don’t care and all the Democrats are going to do is sit around talking about veganism and pronouns.’
House speaker Nancy Pelosi and California governor Gavin Newsom got into a spat this weekend after Newsom called out fellow democrats for failing to retaliate against republicans on Wednesday.
Where is the Democratic Party – where’s the party?’ Newsom said speaking to the public, ‘Why aren’t we calling this out? This is a concerted, coordinated effort and, yes, they’re winning. We need to stand up. Where is the counter offensive?’
Pelosi, who has represented the district encompassing San Francisco since 1987, pushed back on the California Democratic governor during an interview with CBS Face the Nation on Sunday.
‘I have no idea why anybody would make that statement unless they were unaware of the fight that has been going on,’ she said of Newsom.
‘The fact is that we have been fighting for a woman’s right to choose – and that is to choose. We have been fighting against the Republicans in the Congress constantly,’ she insisted in a pushback on her California colleague’s comment.
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Thursday that a federal abortion ban is ‘possible’ if the Supreme Court rules to overturn Roe v. Wade.
‘If the leaked opinion became the final opinion, legislative bodies – not only at the state level but at the federal level – certainly could legislate in that area,’ McConnell, of Kentucky, told USA Today.
‘And if this were the final decision, that was the point that it should be resolved one way or another in the legislative process. So yeah, it’s possible.’