{"id":27954,"date":"2022-05-06T02:43:53","date_gmt":"2022-05-06T02:43:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.esinsolito.com\/did-conservative-justices-lie-about-roe-v-wade\/"},"modified":"2022-05-06T02:43:53","modified_gmt":"2022-05-06T02:43:53","slug":"did-conservative-justices-lie-about-roe-v-wade","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.esinsolito.com\/did-conservative-justices-lie-about-roe-v-wade\/","title":{"rendered":"Did Conservative Justices Lie About Roe v. Wade?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
\n

\t\t\tFive conservative Supreme Court justices dishonestly suggested, in Senate confirmation hearings, that they thought Roe v. Wade was beyond overturning.\n\t\t<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

Fact Check<\/h2>\n

In May 2022, after news leaked that the U.S. Supreme Court had provisionally voted<\/a> to overturn the abortion protections enshrined in Roe v. Wade, the left-wing political action committee MeidasTouch briefly caused \u201c#LyingGOP\u201d to trend on Twitter, with a video that accused five Republican-appointed justices of lying about their intentions to overturn the landmark ruling. <\/p>\n

MeidasTouch posted<\/a> the video on various<\/a> social<\/a> media<\/a> platforms<\/a> and used it to solicit monetary contributions<\/a>. <\/p>\n

\"Lying<\/a><\/figure>\n

However, the creators of the video badly misrepresented the full scope of relevant facts in two important ways, and we are issuing a rating of \u201cFalse.\u201d <\/p>\n

First, they engaged in highly selective editing of much longer and more nuanced archival clips of future justices during their U.S. Senate confirmation hearings, in order to grossly misrepresent the substance of what they said. <\/p>\n

Second, they appeared to misunderstand or misrepresent the meaning of a Supreme Court precedent. In brief, describing a ruling as an important precedent is not tantamount to giving a commitment not to overturn that ruling, or indicating you believe that ruling cannot be overruled. Therefore, the sweeping allegations of premeditated dishonesty on the part of GOP-appointed justices were as poorly supported by evidence as they were wrongheaded.<\/p>\n

The following is our breakdown of what the MeidasTouch \u201cmegaviral supercut\u201d video claimed, lined up against what the factual record shows.<\/p>\n

Justice Clarence Thomas <\/h2>\n
\"Room,<\/a>
File photo of Clarence Thomas during his 1991 U.S. Senate confirmation hearings. Source: Bettmann \/ Getty Images.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The following is how Meidas Touch presented Thomas\u2019s remarks:<\/p>\n

\n

Clarence Thomas:<\/strong> I believe the constitution protects the right to privacy. And I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue.<\/p>\n

Caption:<\/strong> HE LIED<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In this section of the video, MeidasTouch mutilated a 1991 quotation from then-Supreme Court nominee Thomas, and grossly misrepresented the substance and meaning of his remarks. In reality, Thomas absolutely did not provide any assurances on how he might rule on the specific case of Roe v. Wade, nor on the question of abortion rights. <\/p>\n

The clip of Thomas came from a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Sep. 11, 1991. Readers can watch the exchange in full<\/a>, or read a full transcript<\/a>. <\/p>\n

U.S. Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, D-Ohio, had been attempting to pin down Thomas\u2019s views on whether the U.S. Constitution protects abortion rights, and had highlighted what he presented as discrepancies in Thomas\u2019s past pronouncements.<\/p>\n

In particular, Metzenbaum asked Thomas to resolve an apparent gap between his putative support for a constitutionally-enshrined right to privacy, more broadly, and abortion rights in particular. Metzenbaum put it to Thomas that:<\/p>\n

\n

I fear that you, like other nominees before the committee, could assure us that you support a fundamental right to privacy, but could also decline to find that a woman\u2019s right to choose is protected by the constitution.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

At the culmination of his remarks, Metzenbaum asked Thomas:<\/p>\n

\n

I must ask you to tell us here and now whether you believe that the constitution protects a woman\u2019s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy, and I am not asking you as to how you would vote in connection with any case before the court.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In response, Thomas prevaricated, as so many judicial nominees have in recent decades: <\/p>\n

\n

I am afraid though, on your final question, Senator, that it is important for any of us who are judges, in areas that are very deeply contested\u2026I think that to take a position would undermine my ability to be impartial\u2026<\/p>\n

I am afraid that to begin to answer questions about what my specific position is in these contested areas would greatly \u2014 or leave the impression that I prejudged this issue. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

When Metzenbaum again attempted to pin down the nominee, Thomas again prevaricated, providing the quotation that would be mutilated and misrepresented by MeidasTouch in their video:<\/p>\n

\n

Senator, as I noted yesterday, and I think we all feel strongly in this country about our privacy \u2014 I do \u2014 I believe the constitution protects the right to privacy. And I have no reason or agenda to prejudge the issue<\/strong> or to predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion, which is a difficult issue. [Emphasis is added<\/em>]. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As the transcript makes clear, MeidasTouch cut off the second half of Thomas\u2019s sentence, in which he stipulated that he had \u201cno reason\u2026to prejudge\u201d or \u201cto predispose to rule one way or the other on the issue of abortion.\u201d <\/p>\n

In reality, Thomas was repeatedly urged and asked to make pronouncements on abortion rights, and refused to do so. The notion, therefore, that in this exchange he somehow gave an assurance that he would not ever vote to overturn Roe v. Wade is utterly without basis in fact.<\/p>\n

Justice Samuel Alito<\/h2>\n
\"Tie,<\/a>
WASHINGTON \u2013 JANUARY 10: U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito answers questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee during the second day of his confirmation hearings January 10, 2006 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. (Photo by Mark Wilson\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The following is how MeidasTouch presented Alito\u2019s remarks:<\/p>\n

\n

Alito:<\/strong> Roe v Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973. It has been challenged on a number of occasions and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision. When a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value.<\/p>\n

Caption:<\/strong> HE LIED<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Once again, this presentation gives the grossly misleading impression that, in his confirmation hearings, Alito indicated he would not vote to overturn Roe v Wade. In reality, the full scope of his remarks clearly shows that \u2014 like most judicial nominees \u2014 Alito very carefully avoided<\/em> giving any assurances about how he might vote on that precedent. <\/p>\n

The clip in question came from Alito\u2019s hearings on Jan. 11, 2006. Readers can examine a full transcript<\/a> of the relevant exchange, or watch a video of it<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Ironically, the starting point for the exchange was the concern expressed by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that Alito had \u201cdecided to create categories of cases that have been decided by the Court that you will concede have constitutional protection, but you have left in question the future of Roe v. Wade.\u201d<\/p>\n

In other words, Durbin was concerned that Alito had not stated, for the record, that Roe v. Wade was no longer open to overturning, and indeed had in the past asserted<\/a> that \u201cthe Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.\u201d<\/p>\n

So while MeidasTouch presented Alito\u2019s remarks as proof that he thought Roe v. Wade was beyond overturning \u2014 \u201cRoe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court<\/span>\u201d \u2014 what those remarks actually<\/em> constituted was Alito\u2019s careful avoidance<\/em> of describing the ruling as such. Here\u2019s the key exchange:<\/p>\n

\n

Durbin:<\/strong> Do you believe [Roe v Wade] is the settled law of the land?
Alito:<\/strong> Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time. It has been challenged on a number of occasions, and I discussed those yesterday, and the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the decision, sometimes on the merits, sometimes [as] in Casey<\/a> based on stare decisis, and I think that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed that strengthens its value as stare decisis\u2026
Durbin: <\/strong>Is it the settled law of the land?
Alito:<\/strong> It is a \u2014 if settled means that it can\u2019t be re-examined, then that\u2019s one thing. If settled means that it is a precedent that is entitled to respect as stare decisis, and all of the factors that I\u2019ve mentioned come into play, including the reaffirmation and all of that, then it is a precedent that is protected, entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis, in that way.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

What Alito is saying here is that Roe v. Wade is clearly a precedent whose conclusions have been repeatedly reaffirmed by the court, and would not lightly be overturned, taking into account the doctrine of stare decisis<\/a> \u2014 the legal principle of deference to precedent expressed in the Latin phrase, which means \u201clet stand what has been decided.\u201d <\/p>\n

What Alito is not<\/em> saying \u2014 indeed, what he is scrupulously avoiding saying, despite Durbin\u2019s best efforts \u2014 is that Roe v Wade is beyond overturning, like various other landmark precedents he had mentioned elsewhere in the hearings, such as Brown v. the Board of Education. <\/p>\n

So the full scope of Alito\u2019s remarks, when viewed objectively and in context, actually show the opposite<\/em> of what the brief clip, strategically cut away by MeidasTouch, appeared to show. <\/p>\n

Justice Neil Gorsuch<\/h2>\n
\"Tie,<\/a>
WASHINGTON, DC \u2013 MARCH 22: Judge Neil Gorsuch testifies during the third day of his Supreme Court confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill, March 22, 2017 in Washington. (Photo by Justin Sullivan\/Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The following is how Meidas Touch presented Gorsuch\u2019s remarks. <\/p>\n

\n

Gorsuch:<\/strong> Roe v Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the United States Supreme Court, worthy [of] treatment [as] precedent, like any other. <\/p>\n

Caption:<\/strong> HE LIED<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

MeidasTouch badly misrepresented Gorsuch\u2019s remarks in the same way as it did Alito\u2019s. In reality, by describing Roe v. Wade as a precedent \u201cworthy of treatment as precedent,\u201d Gorsuch was assiduously avoiding going any further or categorizing it as beyond overturning.<\/p>\n

The pattern should be familiar by now. Gorsuch\u2019s remarks came during a Senate confirmation hearing on March 21, 2017, and can be read<\/a> and viewed<\/a> in their proper context.<\/p>\n

During his questioning of the Trump nominee, Judiciary committee chairman U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, asked Gorsuch whether he thought DC v. Heller<\/a>, a landmark 2008 decision in which the court reaffirmed the Second Amendment right to bear arms, had been correctly decided. Gorsuch said:<\/p>\n

\n

Senator, I would respectfully respond that it [DC v Heller] is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court, and as a good judge, you do not approach that question anew, as if it had never been decided. That would be a wrong way to approach it. My personal views, I would also tell you, Mr. Chairman, belong over here. I leave those at home\u2026Part of being a good judge is coming in and taking precedent as it stands, and your personal views about the precedent have absolutely nothing to do with the good job of a judge.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Gorsuch then effectively reiterated the same response in relation to several other landmark precedents, including Citizens United<\/a>, Hosanna-Tabor<\/a>, Gideon v. Wainwright<\/a> and Roe v. Wade. On the latter case, Gorsuch said:<\/p>\n

\n

Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest<\/a> considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey<\/a> in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy [of] treatment [as] precedent like any other.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Did Gorsuch indicate that Roe v Wade was particularly or unusually vulnerable to being overturned? No. Did he suggest it was immune to overturning? Absolutely not. <\/p>\n

Justice Brett Kavanaugh<\/h2>\n
\"Person,<\/a>
Brett Kavanaugh speaks at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, USA, 27 September 2018. (Photo: Pool \/ Getty Images).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The following is how MeidasTouch presented Kavanaugh\u2019s remarks. <\/p>\n

\n

Kavanaugh:<\/strong> As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By \u201cit\u201d I mean Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey. Been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent. <\/p>\n

Caption:<\/strong> HE LIED<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The clip in question came from Kavanaugh\u2019s Senate judiciary committee hearing on Sep. 5, 2018, during questioning by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Readers can consult the relevant transcript<\/a> and video<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Feinstein had been attempting to pin down Kavanaugh about his views on the status of Roe v. Wade as a precedent, and whether it \u201ccould be overturned.\u201d Kavanaugh, stating the obvious, acknowledged Roe was a precedent and described Planned Parenthood v. Casey as \u201cprecedent on precedent\u201d but declined to go further, despite repeated invitations by Feinstein.<\/p>\n

\n

Feinstein:<\/strong> \u2026It has been reported<\/a> that you have said that Roe is now settled law. The first question I have of you is what do you mean by \u201csettled law\u201d? I tried to ask earlier do you believe it is correct law? Have your views on whether Roe is settled precedent or could be overturned, and has your views changed since you were in the Bush White House?<\/p>\n

Kavanaugh: <\/strong>Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Feinstein followed up one last time, asking \u201cWhat would you say your position today is on a woman\u2019s right to choose?\u201d and Kavanaugh again prevaricated on the future sustainability of Roe v Wade:<\/p>\n

\n

As a judge, it is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. By \u201cit,\u201d I mean Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. They have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent, which itself is an important factor to remember.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

As we have pointed out in other cases, acknowledging that a ruling is a precedent, or even \u201cprecedent on precedent,\u201d is not the same as saying you would never overturn it. <\/p>\n

Justice Amy Coney Barrett<\/h2>\n
\"amy<\/a>
In this Oct. 14, 2020 file photo, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett speaks during a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo\/Susan Walsh, Pool)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The following is how MeidasTouch presented Barrett\u2019s remarks. <\/p>\n

\n

Barrett:<\/strong> Roe is not a superprecedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn\u2019t mean that Roe should<\/em> be overruled. <\/p>\n

Caption:<\/strong> THEY ALL LIED<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This is perhaps the most egregious example of all, and comes from the second day of Barrett\u2019s Senate confirmation hearing, Oct. 13, 2020. An official transcript was not readily available in this case, but readers can consult video footage<\/a>. <\/p>\n

U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., was questioning Barrett about various Supreme Court landmarks, and the concept of the \u201csuperprecedent\u201d \u2014 a somewhat ambiguous term coined<\/a> by former Sen. Arlen Specter. <\/p>\n

In a 2013 paper<\/a>, Barrett wrote \u201cSuperprecedents are cases that no justice would overrule, even if she disagrees with the interpretive premises from which the precedent proceeds,\u201d and included the following more detailed explanation from law professor Michael Gerhardt:<\/p>\n

\n

[T]he point at which a well-settled practice becomes, by virtue of being well-settled, practically immune to reconsideration is the point at which that precedent has become a superprecedent. Nothing becomes a superprecedent, at least in my judgment, unless it has been widely and uniformly accepted by public authorities generally, including the Court, the President, and Congress.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In that 2013 paper, Barrett also explicitly listed a handful of Supreme Court cases \u2014 including Brown v. the Board of Education \u2014 which were typically cited as superprecedents. <\/p>\n

Earlier in her confirmation hearing, during questioning by judiciary committee chairman U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Barrett had said<\/a> that, in the context of legal scholarship, a superprecedent was a \u201cprecedent that is so well established that it would be unthinkable that it would ever be overruled\u201d and Barrett would also similarly tell Klobuchar that the term described a precedent that was \u201cso widely-established and agreed-upon by everyone [that] calls for its overruling simply don\u2019t exist.\u201d<\/p>\n

That was the background against which Klobuchar asked Barrett whether Roe v. Wade was a superprecedent, and Barrett explicitly excluded Roe v. Wade from the small handful of cases to which that term applies. She said:<\/p>\n

\n

The way that [\u201csuperprecedent\u201d] is used in the scholarship, and the way that I was using it in the article that you\u2019re reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I\u2019m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn\u2019t fall in that category. And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn\u2019t mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively it does mean that it\u2019s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn\u2019t call for its overruling. <\/p>\n

\u2026As Richard Fallon from Harvard said, Roe is not superprecedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn\u2019t mean that Roe should<\/em> be overruled. It just means that it doesn\u2019t fall on the small handful of cases like Marbury v Madison and Brown v the Board, that noone questions any more. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Reading Barrett\u2019s remarks in their proper context clearly demonstrates that she directly and explicitly exploded the frankly laughable claim, made by MeidasTouch, that she had indicated Roe v. Wade was immune to overruling. In fact, she did just the opposite.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Sources:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2013 CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF HON. BRETT M. KAVANAUGH TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES<\/em>. https:\/\/www.govinfo.gov\/content\/pkg\/CHRG-115shrg32765\/html\/CHRG-115shrg32765.htm. Accessed 5 May 2022. <\/p>\n

Alito Confirmation Hearing, Day 3 Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org<\/em>. https:\/\/www.c-span.org\/video\/?190503-1\/alito-confirmation-hearing-day-3-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022. <\/p>\n

Barrett Confirmation Hearing, Day 2 Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org<\/em>. https:\/\/www.c-span.org\/video\/?476316-1\/barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022. <\/p>\n

Barrett Confirmation Hearing, Day 2 Part 2 | C-SPAN.Org<\/em>. https:\/\/www.c-span.org\/video\/?476316-4\/barrett-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-2. Accessed 5 May 2022. <\/p>\n

Becker, Jo, and Charles Babington. \u201cNo Right to Abortion, Alito Argued in 1985.\u201d Washington Post<\/em>, 15 Nov. 2005. www.washingtonpost.com<\/em>, https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/archive\/politics\/2005\/11\/15\/no-right-to-abortion-alito-argued-in-1985\/bcbd4e02-0c2e-4dac-8caf-0d252c5630a0\/. <\/p>\n

\u201cExclusive: Supreme Court Has Voted to Overturn Abortion Rights, Draft Opinion Shows.\u201d POLITICO<\/em>, https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2022\/05\/02\/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473. Accessed 5 May 2022. <\/p>\n

GOP Judges EXPOSED as Liars in Megaviral Supercut<\/em>. www.youtube.com<\/em>, https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=9jbHMHN_mfo. Accessed 5 May 2022. <\/p>\n

Gorsuch Confirmation Hearing, Day 2, Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org<\/em>. https:\/\/www.c-span.org\/video\/?425138-1\/supreme-court-nominee-stresses-independence-calls-criticism-judges-disheartening&airingid=61108104. Accessed 5 May 2022. <\/p>\n

\u201cHunting for \u2018Super Precedents\u2019 in U.S. Supreme Court Confirmations \u2013 National Constitution Center.\u201d National Constitution Center \u2013 Constitutioncenter.Org<\/em>, https:\/\/constitutioncenter.org\/blog\/hunting-for-super-precedents-in-u.s-supreme-court-confirmations. Accessed 5 May 2022. <\/p>\n

Judiciary, United States Congress Senate Committee on the. Nomination of Judge Clarence Thomas to Be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, First Session \u2026<\/em> U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993. <\/p>\n

\u201cStare Decisis.\u201d LII \/ Legal Information Institute<\/em>, https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/stare_decisis. Accessed 5 May 2022. <\/p>\n

Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. \u201cRoe Is \u2018Settled Law,\u2019 Kavanaugh Tells Collins. Democrats Aren\u2019t Moved.\u201d The New York Times<\/em>, 21 Aug. 2018. NYTimes.com<\/em>, https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2018\/08\/21\/us\/politics\/kavanaugh-collins-abortion.html. <\/p>\n

Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearing, Day 2, Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org<\/em>. https:\/\/www.c-span.org\/video\/?449705-1\/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022. <\/p>\n

Thomas Confirmation Hearing Day 2, Part 1 | C-SPAN.Org<\/em>. https:\/\/www.c-span.org\/video\/?21115-1\/thomas-confirmation-hearing-day-2-part-1. Accessed 5 May 2022.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Five conservative Supreme Court justices dishonestly suggested, in Senate confirmation hearings, that they thought Roe v. Wade was beyond overturning. Fact Check In May 2022, after news leaked that the U.S. Supreme Court had provisionally voted to overturn the abortion protections enshrined in Roe v. Wade, the left-wing political action committee MeidasTouch briefly caused \u201c#LyingGOP\u201d…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":27955,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.esinsolito.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27954"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.esinsolito.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.esinsolito.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.esinsolito.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.esinsolito.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27954"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.esinsolito.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27954\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.esinsolito.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/27955"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.esinsolito.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27954"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.esinsolito.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27954"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.esinsolito.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27954"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}