News
Featured Image
 Shutterstock

(LifeSiteNews) — A duo of attorneys slated to argue the pro-abortion side in the crucial Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case on the U.S. Supreme Court docket will come to the Court with a pedigree of radical left-wing political involvement and anti-life activism.

Between them, the lawyers have fought to obliterate life-saving legislation, clerked for radically pro-abortion justices, served as legal counsel for an establishment media conglomerate, and worked directly on the conspiracy to oust former President Donald Trump from office over his alleged collusion with Russia in the 2016 election, a conspiracy theory which has since been debunked.

Their radical political affiliations could have a strong bearing on how they argue in the monumental abortion case in the Supreme Court when oral arguments begin December 1.

Widely recognized by both pro-life and pro-abortion advocates as having the potential to overturn existing legal precedent treating pre-viability abortion as a “constitutional right,” Dobbs v. Jackson concerns Mississippi’s HB 1510 law which bans abortions later than 15 weeks gestation for any reason other than physical medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities.

The Supreme Court had announced in May it would hear the case, and has since received a deluge of amicus briefs which have called upon the Court to overturn both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the landmark cases which established and affirmed the “constitutional right” to abortion throughout the U.S.

The lead counsel in the case against overturning Roe and Casey is Julie Rikelman, Litigation Director for the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), who has spent much of her career fighting to eliminate protections for unborn babies.

According to a profile published on the CRR website, Rikelman has held her current position since 2012, a year after she re-joined the Center as a Senior Staff Attorney in 2011 following a stint as Vice President of Litigation at establishment media conglomerate NBC Universal.

Prior to that, Rikelman was a Blackmun Fellow with CRR from 1999–2001. The fellowship was named after Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun who authored the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade.

In her role leading litigation against pro-life laws, Rikelman is credited with “developing an innovative legal strategy,” claiming that laws requiring women to obtain ultrasounds to see their growing baby prior to getting an abortion violate the First Amendment.

The CRR litigation director has also been directly involved in trying to keep Jackson Women’s Health — the abortion clinic named in the Supreme Court case and Mississippi’s last remaining abortion facility — open despite pro-life legislation in the state.

A graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School, Rikelman had clerked for Dana Fabe of the Supreme Court of Alaska, who ruled in 2016 that abortionists need not notify parents before doing abortion procedures on minors.

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Ban Critical Race Theory in public schools
  Show Petition Text
6239 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 7500!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

The dangerous ideas of Critical Race Theory (CRT) are being forced on students in public schools around the country.

This is wrong and parents have had enough! It's time to join them in saying "STOP!" to this harmful and racist propaganda.

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition which says "No to CRT" in public schools, and "Yes to parents' right" to strongly protest CRT.

But, what is CRT anyway and why is it so dangerous?

Critical Race Theory is a hateful system of indoctrination which teaches that one race is either superior or inferior to another race, and that the United States is inherently racist.

CRT is dangerous and hateful precisely because it teaches children who are not white to despise and envy white children simply because of their skin color. And, as a result, it also teaches white children to despise themselves simply because of the color of their skin.

CRT also erroneously teaches that American society is inherently racist, and that different, detrimental policies (like reparations for slavery and race-based pay scales) should be imposed on the population to redistribute wealth from whites to non-whites.

This type of racist/marxist propaganda should have NO place in public, taxpayer-funded schools!

And, thankfully, American parents of EVERY COLOR are raising their voices and ballots against it!

Indeed, parents understand the destructive ramifications of CRT and, despite outrageous threats from Biden's Justice Department to prosecute them, they have been strongly protesting CRT at school board meetings across the country!

And now, in the first test of its kind, a candidate who was campaigning hard against CRT just won the governorship of Virginia in a huge upset victory.

That's great news, but we now need to contact every state legislature about this crucial educational issue.

And, we need to DEMAND that they BAN Critical Race Theory from every public school in their states - both primary and high schools, and colleges!

Whereas advocates of CRT seem more intent on vengence than on teaching children of every race to respect everybody, regardless of skin color, American parents of every race understand that it is not the color of one's skin that matters, but the content of one's character (to paraphrase Martin Luther King, Jr.).

Please SIGN and SHARE this urgent petition asking all state legislatures to BAN Crititical Race Theory from public schools in their respective states.

Thank you!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'States are fighting the Left over the morally bankrupt critical race theory' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/states-are-fighting-the-left-over-the-morally-bankrupt-critical-race-theory/

'Parents who oppose Critical Race Theory in schools could be prosecuted by FBI' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/attorney-general-tasks-fbi-to-move-against-parents-protesting-leftist-agenda-in-schools/

Ohio parents testify: Yes, critical race theory is in our schools, and we say NO! - https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/ohio-parents-testify-yes-critical-race-theory-is-in-our-schools-and-we-say-no

An excellent Heritage Foundation document on CRT: Critical Race Theory Would Not Solve Racial Inequality: It Would Deepen It

**Photo Credit: EJ Nickerson / Shutterstock.com

  Hide Petition Text

Last year, Rikelman scored a win for abortion advocates in Supreme Court case June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, in which she defended a Louisiana abortion facility against the state’s legislation requiring basic medical precautions in the event of abortion complications.

She succeeded in obtaining a narrow 5-4 ruling in favor of the abortion mill by convincing the slim majority of the Court to uphold a 2016 precedent in which a similar Texas law was struck down in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

Pro-lifers are hopeful that following Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s replacement with ostensibly conservative Catholic Justice Amy Coney Barrett late last year, the Court will be better positioned to reevaluate precedent in Dobbs and rule in a manner favorable to protecting the unborn.

Rikelman has acknowledged that “[i]f the Supreme Court upholds” the Mississippi abortion ban, “it will have effectively overturned Roe v. Wade.”

Joining Rikelman on the docket is Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, appointed by the Biden administration in October.

Prelogar made her debut as solicitor general arguing against Texas’ right to enact its life-saving Heartbeat Act, which effectively bans abortions in the Lone Star State by forbidding any abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected, which is usually around six weeks gestation.

Prelogar called Texas’ law “an attack on the authority of this court to say what the law is,” adding that the Texas law was enacted in “open defiance” of the Supreme Court precedents in Roe and Casey.

Prior to her October appointment as solicitor general, Prelogar was a senior counselor at the Department of Justice (DOJ).

During her time in the DOJ Prelogar worked as Assistant Special Counsel to Robert Mueller in the specious investigation of then-President Donald Trump for alleged collusion with Russia in the 2016 election, a baseless allegation which has since been debunked.

Previously, Prelogar clerked for radically pro-abortion Supreme Court justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan. She had also clerked for Judge Merrick Garland while he was in the U.S. Court of Appeals prior to his appointment as U.S. Attorney General this year, in which role he has drawn fire for allegedly launching a domestic terrorism investigation against parents concerned about radical racial and sexual ideologies perpetuated in school curricula.

Rikelman and Prelogar are set to argue for maintaining precedent by upholding Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

They will argue in opposition to Mississippi solicitor general Scott Stewart, who is set to defend his state’s contention that the Supreme Court rulings establishing a constitutional “right” to abortion were “egregiously wrong” with “no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition.”

Appointed to his role in March, Stewart had clerked for staunchly pro-life Justice Clarence Thomas and served in the Trump administration’s Justice Department, in which he defended a Trump administration policy that opposed the facilitation of abortions for unaccompanied minors who had crossed the southern border illegally.

Oral arguments are set to begin in Dobbs v. Jackson on December 1. A decision is anticipated in the case by next summer.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.