Radical activist judges are going to continue being radical.

A Washington D.C. judge who just can't stand the fact that Roe vs Wade was overturned in the Dobbs' decision, is now saying that there still might be a hidden right to abortion in the Constitution, perhaps in another amendment.

Considering the original "right to abortion" found in Roe was completely fabricated, this shouldn't come as a shock.

From Politico:

In a pending criminal case against several anti-abortion activists, U.S. District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization concluded only that the 14th Amendment included no right to abortion but stopped short of definitively ruling out other aspects of the Constitution that might apply.

"[I]t is entirely possible that the Court might have held in Dobbs that some other provision of the Constitution provided a right to access reproductive services had that issue been raised," the judge wrote. "However, it was not raised."

You see, Roe found an imaginary right to kill your child in the 14th Amendment, even though nothing of the sort is said there, as Dobbs pointed out.

But what's to stop liberal activist judges from finding the exact same right elsewhere in the Constitution?

Kollar-Kotelly noted that there is some legal scholarship suggesting that the 13th Amendment — which was ratified at the end of the Civil War and sought to ban slavery and "involuntary servitude" — provides just such a right. She is asking the parties in the criminal case, which involves charges of blocking access to abortion clinics, to present arguments by mid-March...

In particular, the judge is asking them to address "whether the scope of Dobbs is in fact confined to the Fourteenth Amendment" and "whether, if so, any other provision of the Constitution could confer a right to abortion as an original matter … such that Dobbs may or may not be the final pronouncement on the issue, leaving an open question."

So... are we to conclude that this judge is planning to legally equate pregnancy to slavery? As if women are in involuntary servitude as they become mothers?

This is some galaxy brain stuff here.

Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, indicated that she viewed this position as overly broad. Dobbs, she noted, confined its analysis to the 14th Amendment alone, although she conceded it contains sweeping statements that could lead one to conclude the justices were convinced nothing in the Constitution protects abortion rights.

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion," Justice Samuel Alito declared in the Dobbs majority opinion, which was endorsed by four other justices.

It's hilarious that a ruling can include the phrase "The Constitution does not confer a right to an abortion" and these lefty judges will say, "well, that's not really what the ruling means."

But that's precisely what's happening here.

And if it's not in the 14th Amendment or the 13th, they're sure to find the supposed "right to abortion" somewhere.

Beyond the 13th Amendment argument that Kollar-Kotelly floated, several Jewish organizations have filed lawsuits arguing that religious freedom protections in the First Amendment or state constitutions may extend to abortion rights.

A Massachusetts-based Satanic temple has also filed lawsuits contending that abortion restrictions in other states violate the group's religious freedom rights.

The only thing stopping this from happening is a few Republican-appointed men and one woman who sit on the Supreme Court.