The US Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday into the constitutionality of Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which could overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade case which imposed a radical abortion regime on all fifty American states.

While questions and comments during oral argument are no sure guarantee of how a judge will rule, editors at the conservative National Review, said it was “hard to see how the argument could have gone much better for the pro-life cause. Now, we wait to see if the Justices have the fortitude to do the right thing, end 48 years of judicial usurpation, and restore the primacy of the Constitution”.

They noted Justice Kavanaugh, regarded as the potential swing vote, stressed how often the Court has jettisoned prior precedents, and returned again and again to the theme that getting the Court out of abortion is the “scrupulously neutral,” small-d democratic middle ground. Chief Justice John Roberts “correctly compared Roe to the abortion regimes of China and North Korea and noted that it should be concerning for the USA to find themselves in that company.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who has given birth to five children and adopted two more, pushed back against the notion that women are forced to be parents, given the option to give up a child for adoption. None of those justices seemed particularly impressed by the answers to their questions.

“A majority of the Court appears to understand that Roe is bad law. What remains to be seen is whether they have the courage to act on that,” the editors concluded.