Select Page

SCOTUS Did Not End Abortion, Take Away Gay Rights, End Academic Diversity Or Block Student Loan Entitlement   

SCOTUS Did Not End Abortion, Take Away Gay Rights, End Academic Diversity Or Block Student Loan Entitlement   

The Supreme Court has offered up several decisions that has the radical left in a frenzy of fearmongering and political hatred – which is nothing new.  The left-wingers are so upset that they have resurrected their hapless and hopeless demand to change the Supreme Court into a permanent left-wing institution – something they believed they had already achieved.  They call for the impeachment of current justices and the packing of the Court with more of them – appointed by a left-wing President, of course.

The left’s criticisms of the recent court decisions are based on misinformation, false narratives, and the usual political propaganda.  They infer – and in some cases outright claim – that the Supreme Court has virtually ended abortion … taken away a fundamental right and protection from the gay community … ended academic diversity … and imposing unwarranted costs on student loan recipients. 

None of those things are true.  Let us examine the major decisions that have the left’s propaganda machine going over time.


According to the leftwing/Democrat narrative, the Supreme Court took away a woman’s “right” to have an abortion at any time for any reason.  Far from it. They proffer this false argument to foment public anxiety and divisiveness for political advantage.

What the Supreme Court clarified is that under the Constitution there is no “right” to have abortions performed on developing human beings.   BUT (🡨 A big but) … there is no constitutional or legal inhibition to abortions at any stage for any reason.  The decisions on abortion are left to the people of the states.  Based on demographics, those decisions will vary from state-to-state – just as most laws vary from state-to-state.

The Court did not make abortion on demand illegal.  It left it up to the people and legislatures they elect to establish laws regulating, limiting, or outlawing abortions – or not. The fact that the elected representatives of the people in half the states have decided to restrict abortions in various manners is strong evidence that there was no overwhelming support for UNLIMITED abortion-on-demand – as abortion advocates claim.

The Roe v. Wade case was decided on constitutional shaky ground.  Even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was concerned that it would be overturned because of that.  It was a unique interpretation of the privacy clause – a stretch of conventional legal understanding.  It was not the first time that the Court made a bad decision based on public sentiment.  One only need recall the Dred Scott Decision and a number of decisions supporting slavery and de jure racist laws and politics.

From the FEDERAL perspective, abortion-on-demand is as legal today as it was before the Court decision.  And … most of the limitations against late term abortions are supported by a majority of the American public.  Something you do not hear about from the proffers of left-wing propaganda.

Affirmative Action

The left bleats as though academic diversity has ended on college campuses.  Not even close.  What has ended is a mandated requirement to establish some sort of quota system based on black admissions.  The decision does not prevent colleges and universities from considering a student’s application based on a self-imposed school policy of creating a diverse campus.  It just means that skin color alone cannot be the sole determinant.  

The Supreme Court decision also ends the discrimination against non-black applicants – especially Asians. It will tend to produce a system in which the best and the brightest are admitted – and that is how it should be.  And … there are more than enough of black best and the brightest to maintain diversity on campuses.  

It does not resolve the problem of the unequal education in the segregated major cities that is depriving millions of blacks and Hispanics from access to college because of the poor quality of inner city schools. That is a problem that requires a different fix.

I recently wrote a more complete commentary on this subject.

Gay rights

The Supreme Court decided in favor of a website designer who did not wish to create websites for gay weddings based on her personal beliefs – religious or otherwise.  The court agreed that in this narrow, but important, issue forcing her to produce the website is tantamount to forced speech –the other side of the First Amendment coin.  She would be forced to create language – essentially a public statement – with which she personally disagrees.

Contrary to the misinformation coming from the left, this case was NOT about “public accommodation” – providing general business services without discrimination.  She would serve gay customers seeking websites for their businesses or other matters.  It was the message, not the sexual preference of the potential customer, that was at issue.

It would be as if some local law required me to write commentary supporting Putin’s invasion of Ukraine for a paid customer seeking writing services.  I could refuse.  Obviously, that would violate my First Amendment right to express my own opinion.  In fact, I have occasionally refused potential clients with whom I disagreed politically or morally.  For example, I would never write a commentary supporting abortion-on-demand if Planned Parenthood asked me to do so and was willing to pay.  Even a business has a First Amendment right not to be forced into speech.  

The Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment and did no harm to gay rights in the marketplace of “public accommodations.”

School Loans

The Supreme Court was correct on two counts with regard to the student loan forgiveness program – although only one was based on the Constitution.  The other was merely coincidental.  The Court was correct on the law.  It was not within the power of a President to forgive such a legal obligation to the national treasury.  It was an abuse of power by President Biden – and I suspect he knew that.

Biden has now proposed an alternative – an equally unconstitutional way to forgive billions of dollars of legitimate financial obligations to the government.  I suspect it will also not pass constitutional muster and be struck down by the Supreme Court. And I suspect, Biden knows it.

I doubt Biden cares one way or the other – if the Court allows it or not.  He is seeking – and potentially getting – political points from millions of student loan holders.  He is attempting to buy their votes with taxpayer money.  And if that does not work, he will take political credit for trying.

The secondary benefit of the Court decision was one of fairness.  It is just not fair to forgive some borrowers after others have paid off their student loans – and unfair to those who will be assuming them in the near future.  Biden’s plan is not fair to the American taxpayer, who would be footing the bill.

I have been very critical of the Student Loan Program.  A lot of you people have gotten screwed.  But it is not fair to alleviate the burden on just a few.


The Supreme Court is doing its job – upholding the Constitution and protecting the balance of power between the three federal branches.  Those on the left prefer a Court that bends to their authoritarian will … and ignores the Constitution when it conflicts with their political agenda.  They want the Court to be the servant of THEIR interests as opposed to the Constitution. 

They want it so much that they will lie to the public and use those lies to build a fraudulent case to take over the court by political means – essentially ending the careful balance of powers.  God help us if they succeed.

So, there ‘tis.

About The Author

Larry Horist

So,there‘tis… The opinions, perspectives and analyses of Larry Horist Larry Horist is a businessman, conservative writer and political strategist with an extensive background in economics and public policy. Clients of his consulting firm have included such conservative icons as Steve Forbes and Milton Friedman. He has served as a consultant to the Nixon White House and travelled the country as a spokesman for President Reagan’s economic reforms. He has testified as an expert witness before numerous legislative bodies, including the U. S. Congress. Horist has lectured and taught courses at numerous colleges and universities, including Harvard, Northwestern, DePaul universities, Hope College and his alma mater, Knox College. He has been a guest on hundreds of public affairs talk shows, and hosted his own program, “Chicago In Sight,” on WIND radio. Horist was a one-time candidate for mayor of Chicago and served as Executive Director of the City Club of Chicago, where he led a successful two-year campaign to save the historic Chicago Theatre from the wrecking ball. An award-winning debater, his insightful and sometimes controversial commentaries appear frequently on the editorial pages of newspapers across the nation. He is praised by readers for his style, substance and sense of humor. According to one reader, Horist is the “new Charles Krauthammer.” He is actively semi-retired in Boca Raton, Florida where he devotes his time to writing. So, there ‘tis is Horist’s signature sign off.


  1. Dan tyree

    Try telling that to the idiots in on the left

  2. frank stetson

    Weasel words…..

    Just can’t get the point of writing this? Certainly not to persuade or illuminate anyone on the left; can’t imagine the intent was to make the right feel better. It’s certainly an interesting twist on reality.

    But abortion was legal throughout the land, now it isn’t.
    Blacks were attending college in some decent numbers, soon they won’t be.
    Gays were a protected class, now they aren’t (not to mention Larry highlights them with a small font size :>)
    And people who were promised checks found out they still owe that money

    Sure seems to me that things change and as we move forward in these troubling times, I am having a hard time reconciling the weasel words that get us to this point.

    Abortion is a State’s rights thing, let the State’s decide, honor the State’s decision
    Colorado passed a specific law protecting gay rights; the SCOTUS took that right away at the Federal level.

    In doing so, they protected a person thinking about a web design business from a make-believe gay person who is actually married and does not have a clue what’s going on.

    Yeah, Larry, explain how all this makes perfect sense. Good job. See you in 2024 when we show you what we think of your story……

    • larry Horist

      Frank Stetson … At least you admit that you do not get the point. My writings may not change any minds on the left… but I do seem to connect with more objective people, and that includes a lot of moderate to left Democrats. You should not make the mistake of thinking I am writing for folks like you. You are too locked into your political mindset to do anything but respond with talking point screeds, sarcasm and snide remarks. What I wrote was not a twist on reality. It was reality. Do you really think minority admissions in schools are going to drop just because admissions will consider academic record as well as personal narratives? I guess you are among the progressives who believe that blacks are less capable than whites. The colleges already lean to the best and brightest black applicants. The website issue was not about gay rights but the First Amendment — you do not seem to get the point of the decision. read it. It does not take away any rights from gays. Abortion is not a constitutional right any more than you would have a RIGHT to have your appendix removed. There is not constitutional right to own a car … to have a job … or to have health insurance … or a college education. Those are all the privileges of a free society. Study the legal difference between a right and a privilege. Just because we want something does not mean we have a RIGHT to have it. But we do have a RIGHT to free speech.

      • chuck

        Oh so wrong. As to your appendix reference you are extremely out there. Risking a Woman’s health and forcing here to carry a baby under any circumstance is nothing like having a right to remove an appendix. Having access to a Dr is a right not a privilege after a rape or incest or health, not just because its wanted. And minority access to higher education is already flawed because of white privledge and factoring in the legacy kids it is much more uneven. You Outdid yourself on this editorial

        • frank stetson

          +1 to the Chuck-ster. Glad I am not alone in FEELING this article was a bit deep in the weeds, in many ways.

        • larry Horist

          Chuck …. so to be so specific, but you are simply wrong about rights and privileges under the Constitution. You need to do a little more self education. And minority access to higher education is not flawed at all … and the numbers prove it. The major problem for minorities is elementary and high school education in the major segregate cities. No one is making a woman carry a baby :under and circumstances — although I was glad to see that you recognize the person in the womb as a “baby.” Pregnancy is not a disease and the vast majority of abortions are performed on healthy women and viable fetuses. Only the developing human being is at risk. I am afraid you outdid yourself in not knowing the FACTS.

      • frank stetson

        Your defensive reply threw me but totally my fault and I apologize for my “weasel words” which kicked this off, my bad. I should have explained more, tagged less so I deserve your retort of ill repute.

        I admitted I did not get YOUR point in even writing this piece, not that I did not get the points made. And then I explained what I meant which I guess you did not catch. Funny you complaining about screeds, sarcasm and snide remarks — pot/kettle much? And how do you know who you connect with or do you just call anyone who kisses you ass: more objective, moderate to left democrats? Glad you know them; I know them more and more of them. Based on many of your comments to folks who think outside of your paradigms, I do not feel alone in receiving these tidbits from you. Too bad.

        “What I wrote was not a twist on reality. It was reality.” Sure. In your mind. I said what I said because I read what I read, and that’s what I came away with. That’s my takeaway. Do you think that Larry Horist telling me I am wrong because he says so will move me?

        “Do you really think minority admissions in schools are going to drop just because admissions will consider academic record as well as personal narratives?” Yes, because it appears to be true, even in California: “Black enrollment fell rapidly at the top schools in the University of California system. Before the ban, Black students made up 7 percent of the student body at U.C.L.A. By 1998, that figure had slipped to 3.93 percent. By the fall of 2006, the freshman class included only 96 Black students out of nearly 5,000.” **

        “I guess you are among the progressives who believe that blacks are less capable than whites.” Guess away, keep making it up.

        “The colleges already lean to the best and brightest black applicants.” Are you saying the best and brightest black applicants rate lower than whites?

        “The website issue was not about gay rights but the First Amendment — you do not seem to get the point of the decision. read it. It does not take away any rights from gays.” From the decision: “Ms. Smith filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman.” Uh — would that be cows she is talking about denial of service for? I said she will serve gays, just not the service that they may want because the SCOTUS says free speech means not be forced to speak what others deem free speech when your purpose is to promote what they are saying. It’s denial of service to a class; that class is gay. And, to top it off, —– it’s hypothetical — there is no active dispute between parties. The SCOTUS is just fucking spit balling.

        “Abortion is not a constitutional right.” Word it all you want, the fact is: “abortion was legal throughout the land, now it isn’t.” True as the sky is blue.

        “Abortion is not a constitutional right any more than you would have a RIGHT to have your appendix removed. There is not constitutional right to own a car … to have a job … or to have health insurance … or a college education. Those are all the privileges of a free society.” And yes, I can drive in 50 States, work, have health insurance too. But if I live in Florida and want an abortion, chances are I’m heading North of the Mason Dixon (or just below it in my beloved Maryland) to exercise my privilege of the un-free society that Florida IS. Like I said, you got some twists on reality here, it seems.

        Again, sorry about setting the stage for your defensive, overreactive response, my bad for sure. Hope this clarifies, but really — that’s some twist on reality and it seems you are prepping for the result of these over-the-top political SCOTUS rulings: 2024. These gents, and the lady, are really supporting the cause.

      • Joseph S. Bruder

        Larry, what makes you think you’re connecting with “more objective people” and/or “a lot of moderate to left Democrats”? Polls routinely show high 60’s to low 70’s support for abortion rights, gay rights, black and minority rights, religious rights (i.e. rights of non-Christians, and the separation of Church and State), and environmental laws (which the SCOTUS just decimated).

        And you repeat the tired old tropes like “you must believe that blacks can’t get into colleges on their merits” when it’s been shown that merits don’t matter when the applicants are a different race from those choosing candidates. Or that legacy admissions don’t tilt the playing field away from minorities. It has already been shown in states that ended affirmative action, that minority acceptance rates go down to 1-2% after affirmative action was disallowed. Are you going to tell me that a much lower share of blacks is eligible to go to college? For what reasons – poverty, drugs, not studying in school?

        The website issue is about prioritizing supposedly religious rights over equal protection, even though there is a separation between the law and religion.

        If the law said, “only black females can have their appendices removed”, you’d probably protest that it violates basic human rights. After all, it’s medically necessary, living tissue is removed, but sex or immorality was not involved, and hey, bodily autonomy and medical rights, too? But because some people believe what religion tells them, the states now have the ability to prevent abortion. There is belief among anti-abortionists, stated with absolute conviction, that all life begins at conception. Or that a heartbeat (actually it’s just electrical signals at that point) mean that the fetus is suddenly a baby to be protected. Or that aborting a fetus is murder of a “baby”. Never mind that the thinking part of the brain doesn’t develop until 6 months or more after conception. Never mind that the fetus cannot live outside the womb until at least 7 months, or that some fetuses develop with anomalies that guarantee that the fetus won’t survive birth, but could endanger women’s lives. Or that pregnancy can cause depression, can result in life-long poverty, can interfere with a woman’s education and ability to support herself. Or that men, rapists or not, pretty much get a free pass if they disappear and don’t support the child.

        The Court has given states the ability to create their own slave class – women who can’t have abortions because they can’t afford to travel 100 or 1000 miles to another state, in some states they’re trying to take away contraception and the right to travel to another state for an abortion, they’re taking away reproductive counseling, free health care options, support for children born in poverty, forcing women to work AND raise their child if they want state support. The state takes away the “the privileges of a free society” by denying women control over their own bodies – in short, SCOTUS has enabled a new way for states to legalize slavery – it’s just based on poverty and misogyny, and only indirectly (wink wink nod nod) on race.

        • larry Horist

          Joseph S Bruder … A half truth is tantamount to a lie. When you note that 60 to 70 percent of the people favor legalized abortion, you ignore the fact that most people favor strict limits — 80 percent against late-term abortions.

          You also seem to not understand that the Supreme Court does not operate on the temporary popularity of an issue. Its job is to uphold the Constitution — even if it defy momentary popular opinion. You are a classic radical left-winger who believe in the rule of government — not the constitutional republic. When you accuse the Court of basing decisions on religion, you again misinform. The make decisions of the free exercise of religion. And if you had not noticed, that is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as one of our inalienable rights.

    • Nancy Murphy

      Frank Stetson is either a bot, or someone with a vary false sense of self importance.

      • larry Horist

        Nancy Murphy …. I must come to Frank Stetson’s defense. He is not a bot.

      • Joseph S. Bruder

        You must be new here… Frank is sometimes colorful, but he keeps Larry semi-honest. Where Larry speaks from his gut in an old man “get off my lawn!” kind of way, Frank comes back with statistics and truth to rebut pretty much all of what Larry spews forth.

  3. Darren

    Larry was not defending a stance as what I can see in his article.
    He is making the point the SCOTUS rulings are relinquishing power to the states. The STATES still carry the right to decide what is policy, especially in cases of abortion.
    I myself still think abortion is a horrific act, but really, less horrific than letting a woman die trying to give birth
    or keeping the child of a Rapist?
    The supreme court just clarified the intent of actions as to weather they were federal or not.
    This should please the left if masses of people actually agree with abortion. All the other complete ridiculous
    Bull shit the left is trying to shove down the throat of the American people, saying this is what we all want will have to proven state by state.
    Maybe this is why some do not lie the ruling.

    • larry Horist

      Darren … The Supreme Court decision was not a big victory for an pro-life. If you believe that the practice is barbaric or immoral, the Court has left millions of developing human beings at risk. The vast majority of abortions are performed on healthy women and viable fetuses. Most pro-lifers and most of the legislation makes exceptions for the life of the mother, incest, rape and other complicating factors. If we were to make abortions based on medical necessity — as is the case with virtually all other medical procedures with the exception of cosmetic procedures — abortions would be very rare. That is why pointing to the rare exception cases as a standard is very misleading. The polling that suggests that most Americans favor legalized abortions — but … the major favor strict limit. Up to 80 percent of the public opposes late-term abortions. the states have differing views on abortion. The states that do not favor any restrictions are states in which the vast majority of abortions take place. The ruling of the Court has not dramatically reduced the number of abortions being performed. The only real concern the pro-abortion community should have is the possibility that the federal government would restrict abortions nationally — applying to all states.

    • Joseph S. Bruder

      The real problem is that the Supreme Court has taken down these precedents using religious freedom as an excuse. And the right wing of the court is no longer credible – Thomas and Alito took bribes from billionaires, Robert’s wife has taken millions from companies that would have business before the Court, Kavanough and Coney-Barrett both stated before Congress that Roe v. Wade was accepted precedent and lied before Congress that they would respect that, promises they’ve broken in at least a half-dozen major cases. The right wing has taken the collective position that religion and money trump all other considerations.