On May 7, vandals smashed multiple windows and doors at Saint John XXIII Catholic Church in Fort Collins, where they emblazoned the words “My Body My Choice” in graffiti. Days before in Boulder, pro-abortion extremists “spray-painted abortion-rights messages across Sacred Heart of Mary’s (Catholic Church) front doors, windows and religious statues.”

Both attacks were clearly retaliation over a leaked U.S. Supreme Court decision indicating that a conservative majority is likely to overturn the Court’s landmark abortion decision in Roe v. Wade.

These Colorado-based Catholic churches have nothing to do with the D.C.-based Supreme Court’s decision-making process, yet they’ve been vandalized in a flagrant religious hate crime.

Colorado isn’t the only state where such bigoted attacks have happened since the leak. Shockingly, the Biden administration’s condemnation of this vandalism can most charitably described as tepid, at best.

“We have not seen violence or vandalism against Supreme Court Justices,” press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday. “We have seen it at Catholic churches. That’s unacceptable; the president does not support that.”

Biden “does not support that?” Such firmness! “We know the passion, we understand the concern, but what the president’s position is, is that that should be peaceful, the protests,” Psaki added – seemingly excusing the violence and vandalism.

If Biden and Psaki, along with Colorado’s own Gov. Jared Polis and Sen. Michael Bennet, refuse to vigorously condemn such behavior – as well as doxxing of Supreme Court justices and protests outside their homes – they effectively condone it.

I will be the first to concede that I underestimated the likelihood that the Supreme Court would actually overturn Roe. As I wrote in January, I have long anticipated the Court was likely to roll back its 1973 decision. I expected they would empower states to place greater restrictions on abortion while falling short of overruling the long-held precedent.

It appears this is the tact that Chief Justice John Roberts would take. It may have also been a more politically-prudent approach, but the constitutional question is a different one. For decades, legal scholars and judges have questioned the constitutional basis for Roe.

In a New York University Law School lecture, even the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “criticized the reasoning of Roe v. Wade as being very poor – I’m paraphrasing – very shoddy,” according to former Judge Ken Starr. Starr served on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals alongside Ginsburg from 1983 to 1989.

Ginsburg, Starr explained to me on KNUS radio Tuesday, “would have sought to justify abortion through the concept of “equality” instead of the concept of due process of law. But the rationale of Roe v. Wade just was very weak – its underpinnings were very weak and criticized at the time by very liberal or progressive scholars as not even being constitutional law. It was just raw policy-making.”

If Roe is indeed overturned, however, the fears of pro-choice activists would not come to pass. The pro-life legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom concludes four possible outcomes in states in a post-Roe scenario. Some states have laws that “existed prior to 1973 but remain unenforced due to Roe,” they note. Those laws would be reinstated and enforced again. Other states have “trigger laws” that would go into effect upon Roe being overturned.

Additionally, many states had pro-life laws that were “enjoined,” or “ruled unconstitutional by a court that could be brought back into effect with Roe‘s reversal.” Finally, the remaining states have pro-abortion laws that will be unaffected if the Court overrules its 1973 landmark decision.

Colorado falls into that fourth category. Democrats recently passed HB22-1279, which Polis signed. The law establishes abortion as a “fundamental right” in Colorado and forbids virtually any limitations on the practice. Even if they hadn’t passed the new law, nothing would change in Colorado because we are a “code state” whereby, unless a law expressly makes something illegal, it is legal.

Colorado has long been the most permissive state in the union on abortion. That radicalism was codified in HB1279. In reality, for pro-choice activists who are worried about states outright banning abortion, Coloradans live the precise inverse.

Our laws are now so extreme that, in effect, we no longer have the commonsense yet limited requirement that, if a minor is under 18, her parents must be notified (but aren’t required to consent) unless the child obtains a judicial exemption.

Importantly, as I discussed in March, “restricting abortion has historically proven extraordinarily difficult (in Colorado).” I discussed the modest and sensible Proposition 115, which voters rejected in 2020 and would have prohibited abortion after 22 weeks gestational age, with exceptions for the life of the mother or if her life was “threatened by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical industry.”

Prop 115 would have put Colorado in line with most European countries. As the Wall Street Journal editorialized, ” European abortion policy has mostly ended up where opinion polls suggest most Americans would prefer to be: with abortion legal in the first trimester but with more restrictions later, and with some checks such as a waiting period or parental notification for minors.”

In truth, it is astonishing how pro-choice activists and prominent Democrats – including Polis and Sen. Michael Bennet – insist the sky is falling. They know better. How they are silent on the vandalism is beyond comprehension – especially in light of Colorado’s actual post-Roe reality.

Jimmy Sengenberger is host of “The Jimmy Sengenberger Show” Saturdays from 6-9am on News/Talk 710 KNUS. He also hosts “Jimmy at the Crossroads,” a webshow and podcast in partnership with The Washington Examiner.