first as it says in the draft, abortion has created hard divisions within society and Rowe v Wade and Casey have done nothing to remove those divisions. The Judge sets out three camps: pro, anti and pro with limits. Within the pro with limits camp, there are divisions as to when and why abortion should be allowed.

These divisions are lining up behind their own hashtags to vent their respective spleens, something the Judge clearly anticipated would be a response to the Judgment when it is actually finalised and published.

So, I would urge everyone to read the draft in full before jumping on any particular bandwagon. It is, in fact, a very well reasoned /legal/ judgment. It is not a moral stance, although some words in the draft have been taken to be such.

It's 98 pages but it's an easy read, mostly. The Judge has avoided sounding too lawyerly and when he has, he's explained what it means. It is worth reading if for no other reason than a lesson in drafting, be it proposals, contracts, even correspondence.

The second thing is that it is the first time, so far as most commentators say, that a draft judgment has ever been "leaked." The document was given to Politico , a left of centre publication that can be respected for, generally, more or less balanced reporting, although its editorials are more one-sided.

See https://www.politico.com/news/...

The full text is embedded there.

The cause for concern here is the actual leak. The Supreme Court is spitting carefully phrased ire. But ... I have suspicions that this is not the same kind of leak as the #fincenfiles . I suspect that this "leak" was unofficially authorised.

The #supremecourt has recently finished its last "argument session" for the current term. The Decision in the #mississippi case is expected within the next two months. Is the "leak" really a stalking horse, attracting the attention now so that it can be more muted later? Is it being leaked now a political act, designed to make it difficult for mainstream #media media fascinated with other things to find space for it on the front pages?

Perhaps someone will be blamed?

But who? the other side to the story is that the draft was sent to Mississippi so there is real political capital to be made there as the draft basically supports that State's position in the case. With a year to go until the next State Elections, a "we won" message is good - and if the end judgment is different, a "we won but the other side swayed the good guys" is even better.

So maybe there are three things:

Don't rush to opine until you have all the facts

Don't rush to assume that all information is good information

Do assume that anyone passing information may (not will) have an undisclosed agenda.