Alito used Cook as a source in his draft opinion. Cook rewrote English law in the 1600s, and he made abortion illegal. He also made witchcraft illegal, the punishment was death. This isn't legal analysis, it's throwing mud and hoping it sticks. Alito denies privacy arguments, but look at the Court when it's privacy gets violated. I guess what's good for the gander isn't good for the goose. He goes on to argue abortion isn't well grounded. As an Originalist, he could say that about a lot of things, like voting for women.. Slavery used to be acceptable, not it is not. Things change. The elephant in the room is religion. The reason his arguments are laughable is he can't directly support his intent without resorting to religion, which is impermissible in the law.
This has come directly from the Federalist society. The big stinking clue showing that they were the source is how similar every Federalist judge answered the question in relation to RvW on confirmation almost as if they had been groomed .
