Will he or won't he? Will Judge Kavanaugh if given a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court work to overturn the Roe v. Wade case which recognized a women's constitutional right to an abortion in the early stages of her pregnancy? What let the world stop if the truth not be revealed is the answer to this looming "culture touching" question hanging over the Judge Kavanaugh nomination? During his confirmation hearings last week Judge Kavanaugh made a concerted and great effort to appear to pose no threat to the Roe v. Wade law but the U.S. Senate and the American people would be incredibly duped if they believe this to be the truth! From his record one should unequivocally conclude that if given a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh would continually do his best to overturn Roe and until that time weaken Roe as much as possible! Judge Kavanaugh's only abortion case was the Garza v. Hargan case (874 F.3d 735) a 2017 case where Judge Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion which one Democrat Senator during the confirmation hearings quite insightfully essentially analogized the opinion as a "job resume" sent to President Trump for a job on the Supreme Court which President Trump sees as having as a key part of the job description "will overturn the Roe v. Wade precedent law". Really a fair evaluation of this case would conclude that Judge Kavanaugh in his opinion sent a multitude of signals to the far-right bloc and the anti-abortion bloc in America that he is in their camp and will be a great champion for them on this issue if put on the Supreme Court! The facts in the Garza case were that a minor for confidentiality reasons identified as Jane Doe who was not an American citizen illegally emigrated to the United States and was apprehended at the border and because she was an unaccompanied minor (UAM) meaning she didn't have a parent or legal guardian with her pursuant to U.S. government policy was turned over to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which in turn placed her in a privately run facility in the state of Texas which ORR contracts with to hold and shelter unaccompanied minors. These facilities pursuant to government policy upon taking custody of female UAMs give them a pregnancy test and when such was done with Jane Doe they discovered Jane was pregnant at least eight weeks pregnant; abortion is illegal in Jane's native country. In the ORR facility Jane wished to have an abortion it would be an elective abortion as opposed to a medical necessary abortion because there was no health issue with Jane requiring her to consider getting an abortion. She told officials at her facility of her wishes to have an abortion and pursuant to the government policy at that time the Director of ORR had to explicitly approve such abortions for them to occur. The Director of ORR denied Jane's request for an abortion. ORR caused Jane to have to go to a Religious affiliated anti-abortion crisis pregnancy center where she was required to undergo an ultrasound where she would see an image of the fetus and undergo counseling to try to persuade her to not to have an abortion. Texas state law in regards to minors being able to get an abortion requires either parental consent or a judicial bypass. After the Director's denial and enduring the aforementioned persuasion effort with the help of an attorney Jane got a judicial bypass from a Texas state court. With the help of her attorney Jane had an appointment with a medical facility that would provide the abortion and had made arrangements to pay for the abortion so all the government was required to do was to transport Jane to this medical facility the same as if the government would transport an alien minor in their custody to any medical facility for a health care appointment. The government refused and Jane's attorney at Jane's request sought from a Federal District Court a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order) on the government to carry out this transportation task or release Jane into the custody of her lawyer so her lawyer could carry out this task and return Jane to ORR custody. The District Court granted the TRO and the government appealed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. A three Judge Panel of the DC Circuit which Judge Kavanaugh sat on handled the case and ruled against granting a TRO in this case and gave the government more time ( like 7 to 9 days) to find a sponsor to take guardianship of Jane which if such occurred would put the government out of the abortion matter. Jane through her attorney appealed for an en banc hearing from the DC Circuit meaning an appeal to all the Appellate Judges on the DC Circuit Court. On that appeal Jane prevailed the en banc court granted the TRO and denied any temporary stay for further appeal so Jane was able to have her abortion. In the En Banc opinion Judge Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion providing his rulings in the case. Judge Kavanaugh unlike a good judge used bias phraseology and bias mischaracterization of the majority finding in his opinion which one could fairly infer indicates he holds a strong bias against a women's constitutional right to an abortion. Judge Kavanaugh writes "The majority's decision represents a radical extension of the Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence" and "The majority decision --- is ultimately based on a new constitutional principle --- a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate 'abortion upon demand', thereby barring any Government efforts to expeditiously transfer the minors to their immigration sponsors before they make that momentous life decision". It was inappropriate for Judge Kavanaugh to use the phrase "abortion upon demand" he should have used the phrase "elective" abortion for the former phrase implies that there is no responsible analysis involved in this decision by the minors and Judge Kavanaugh has no basis for drawing such conclusions; further, this phrase "abortion upon demand" is a phrase the anti-abortion movement in American uses to disparage the pro-abortion camp in America the use of such partisan terminology in explaining a judicial analysis has no place in a judicial opinions. Secondly, there was no extension of Supreme Court abortion jurisprudence in this case, this case fell within the scope of what a "judicial bypass for a minor" case would be expected to involve and the Supreme Court has found judicial bypasses constitutional. Further, the majorities opinion created no obstruction to a government effort to expeditiously try to place pregnant alien minors with sponsors so they would have help in making such a major decision in their lives the posture of the case undercuts Judge Kavanaugh conclusion here! When the DC Circuit Court got the case Jane was fifteen weeks pregnant Texas State law bans abortions after twenty weeks meaning there wasn't a lot of time left for Jane especially considering the scheduling challenges Jane faced 1 doctor and 2 2 appointments needed; and, Jane had spent 35 days in ORR's custody before her case was filed with the federal district court if there was a precedent it would then be that the Federal Government has only thirty-five days to place an alien minor with a sponsor hardly this precedent would be stopping expeditious transfers by the Government! Judge Kavanaugh had an odd way in his opinion, seen in an abundances of sentences, of referring to a women's constitutional right to an abortion first recognized in the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade opinion. In his opinion acknowledging that all parties agreed on Jane having this right he writes "All parties have assumed for purposes of this case, moreover; that Jane Doe has a right under 'Supreme Court precedent' to obtain an abortion in the United States". In his referring to the scenario that if the government is not able to place Jane with a sponsor they will have to allow her to exercise this right, he writes "But if transfer does not work given existing 'Supreme Court precedent' and the position the Government has so far advanced in this litigation, it could turn out that the Government will be required by existing 'Supreme Court president' to allow the abortion". Judge Kavanaugh in this opinion displays that he has a real aversion to writing that there is a "Supreme Court recognized constitutional right to an abortion" he keeps referencing "Supreme Court precedent". Considering that mostly all Americans know that a Supreme Court precedent can by overturned the reasonable deduction from this aversion of Judge Kavanaugh to flat out referencing this constitutional right means that in his view the U.S. Constitution does not actually provide this right and then the logical deduction from this realization is that if Judge Kavanaugh is placed on the Supreme Court he will be working to overturn the Roe v. Wade precedent! See Part Two!