From NRO: "Justices Show Supreme Skepticism of Roe"

SAD: Some young women outside the Supreme Court, claiming to be taking abortion pills...

From National Review online -

Veterans of Supreme Court cases past know that it is risky to read the tea leaves from questions at argument, but it is hard to see how the argument could have gone much better for the pro-life cause.

The lawyers for the abortion clinic and for the Biden administration insisted on an all-or-nothing outcome, giving the Court no alternative path to uphold the Mississippi law without overruling Roe. Every effort by Chief Justice John Roberts to find some potential compromise standard was rebuffed. That is a risky strategy when the likeliest way to disappoint pro-lifers is the Court’s incrementalists preferring to bend rather than break Roe, but it reflects the calcified, uncompromising extremism of the pro-choice movement.

Nobody seriously defended Roe as a correct reading of the Constitution. Its defenders instead circled the wagons around the institutional importance of adhering to past precedents. Justice Breyer, sounding very much like a man who expected to end up on the losing side of the case, thundered about the Court’s institutional need to avoid revisiting past decisions even if seriously erroneous. Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested, implausibly, that a decision overturning a longstanding precedent could lead to the Court throwing out Marbury v. Madison and discarding the Second Amendment — even though she herself has already voted to overturn D.C. v. Heller. These same arguments could have been made for keeping the pro-segregation Plessy v. Ferguson decision 58 years later in Brown v. Board of Education.