Pro-abortion group plan protests outside SCOTUS justices’ homes

The group Ruth Sent Us has announced "walk-by Wednesday," in which protestors will descend upon the homes of the court’s six conservative judges. Three are located in Maryland, and three in Virginia.

On the group’s website, they have mapped out exact locations of the homes of Amy Coney Barrett, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch.

"Our 6-3 extremist Supreme Court routinely issues rulings that hurt women, racial minorities, LGBTQ+ and immigrant rights. We must rise up to force accountability using a diversity of tactics," they wrote.

The group also notes that stipend are available for those who are interested in doing murals, chalk art, or graphic design. In a tweet, journalist Mark Hemingway questioned who was paying these protestor stipends.

He also noted that in Virginia, it is illegal to protest outside of private homes.

According to the Code of Virginia: "Any person who shall engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling place of any individual, or who shall assemble with another person or persons in a manner which disrupts or threatens to disrupt any individual's right to tranquility in his home, shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor."

ShutDownDC, who previously held a protest outside of Kavanaugh’s home in September, has also announced a similar protest outside of Kavanaugh and Roberts’ Maryland homes on Saturday.

The "Candlelight Vigil for Roe v Wade" will see protestors marching in Chevy Chase to these justices’ homes.

"SATURDAY, Chevy Chase neighbors welcome you to join them for a candlelight walk to the homes of (In)Justices Kavanaugh and Roberts," the group wrote.

These protests follow multiple days of protest that sparked after Politico dropped their story regarding the draft leak. Within hours of publishing, protestors began to gather outside the Supreme Court, with some returning on Tuesday and Wednesday.

In a Tuesday editorial piece from the Wall Street Journal regarding the Supreme Court leak, the outlet’s editorial board wrote: "We hate to say this, but some abortion fanatic could decide to commit an act of violence to stop a 5-4 ruling. It’s an awful thought, but we live in fanatical times."

"The leaker is probably someone who opposes the majority view and wants to bring outside pressure to bear on the Court to turn one of the Justices and sustain a constitutional right to abortion," they added.