Page values for "Why John Roberts's wise prudence was the wrong answer on abortion law"

Jump to navigation Jump to search

"_pageData" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
_creationDateDatetimeJuly 20, 2022 3:04:40 PM
_modificationDateDatetimeJuly 20, 2022 3:04:40 PM
_creatorStringYaron Koren
_fullTextSearchtext{{Item |author=Hugh Hewitt |source=The Washington Post |date=June 25, 2022 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/25/john-roberts-chief-justice-dobbs-overrule-roe-abortion-rights/ |quote=No written, explicit protection for abortion rights exists in the Constitution; nor did the court s ...
_categoriesList of String, delimiter: |Items
_numRevisionsInteger1
_isRedirectBooleanNo
_pageNameOrRedirectStringWhy John Roberts's wise prudence was the wrong answer on abortion law
_pageIDOrRedirectInteger14,288
_lastEditorStringYaron Koren
_pageIDInteger14,288
_pageNamePageWhy John Roberts's wise prudence was the wrong answer on abortion law
_pageTitleString

Why John Roberts's wise prudence was the wrong answer on abortion law

_pageNamespaceInteger0

"Items" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeValue
AuthorList of Page, delimiter: ,Hugh Hewitt
SourcePageThe Washington Post
DateDateJune 25, 2022
URLURLhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/25/john-roberts-chief-justice-dobbs-overrule-roe-abortion-rights/
QuoteTextNo written, explicit protection for abortion rights exists in the Constitution; nor did the court simply anticipate where state legislatures were headed, as it did in the ''Griswold'' case striking down state barriers to contraception or in ''Obergefell'', which established the right to same-sex marriage. Nothing remotely approaching consensus developed on abortion because of the fierce, continuing debate about the status of the fetus/unborn child. This freighted argument must be settled, if ever, by elected representatives accountable to voters.
SummaryWikitext

Why John Roberts's wise prudence was the wrong answer on abortion law by Hugh Hewitt (The Washington Post, June 25, 2022) (view)

"Opinions" values

1 row is stored for this page
FieldField typeAllowed valuesValue
TopicPageDobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
Position_fragmentStringSupreme Court was correct in its ruling
PositionPageDobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization / Supreme Court was correct in its ruling
Position_linkWikitext

Supreme Court was correct in its ruling

StanceStringfor · mixed · againstfor