Does the Reasoning in Roe v. Wade Matter?

The Supreme Court lineup that decided Roe v. Wade. Photo: Bettmann Archive via Getty Images In their fervent efforts to get rid of the constitutional right to an abortion, conservatives have long argued that Roe v. Wade was, as Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his leaked draft decision, “egregiously wrong from the start.” I spoke with senior correspondent Irin Carmon about Roe’s unsteady legal foundations and whether conservatives have merely used them as an excuse to gut abortion rights.

Her case was mooted when the military changed its policy; the justices who wrote Roe didn’t accept the equal protection arguments that were made in an amicus brief, and [Harry] Blackmun stuck to both a right to privacy and, rhetorically, a doctor’s right to practice his profession, which Ginsburg hated. She also thought an incremental approach would have worked better.

Ben: Yes, that’s what I’m wondering. Conservatives have argued for decades, in essence — “this should have been a matter for elections and legislatures, not courts, to decide all along.” Okay, so would this really have been a settled issue if Congress had passed a nationwide law guaranteeing a right to abortion in 1973, instead of the Supreme Court weighing in? It doesn’t seem exceedingly likely.

Ben: So it wasn’t like people immediately saw the flaw in the legal reasoning and were outraged. That all happened later.Ben: Alito wrote that Roe is different from other contentious decisions that guaranteed Americans rights because abortion is not “deeply rooted” in American traditions. But determining what fits the category of “deeply rooted” seems no less arbitrary than finding new rights in the Constitution that weren’t explicitly written down.

realaxelfoley irin What a disingenuous post. Conservatives have 'used' Roe's 'unsteady legal foundations' to gut abortion 'rights'? That is dishonest. Roe states that there is no right to an abortion and rules on implied privacy. Roe does not lay any legal foundation for abortion rights.

realaxelfoley irin That there's no legal precedents warranting cognizance of social changes doesn't mean the courts can simply ignore that very obvious fact.

realaxelfoley irin That's how fascists manipulate existing law to suppress the rights of a population. That's why Republicans have tried their hardest to co-opt the American flag, so that they have more plausible deniability when they act in the most anti-democratic fascistic way possible. Wake up!

United States Latest News, United States Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Opinion | The real reason the right is freaking out about the Supreme Court leak.ZeeshanAleem: Why are Republicans so worried about norms all of a sudden? Norms didn't matter when they blocked President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland. ZeeshanAleem I think they better get used to it Dems too They created this chaos By failing the people Welcome to your own nitemare ZeeshanAleem Old White men… let’s start there 😑 ZeeshanAleem Because 'new' republicanism is actually unchanged from what it ever was - like in kindergarten when the tantrum kiddies only play when the game is what they want, played the way they want, and the biggest kiddie is the scariest!
Source: MSNBC - 🏆 469. / 51 Read more »

North Texans: How has the Roe vs. Wade abortion case affected your life?A draft opinion indicating that the U.S. Supreme Court is poised to overturn Roe vs. Wade sent shockwaves across the nation this week. Dallas Morning News... I should have been aborted based on how bad my parents were. Would have been better off It hasn't. It will be a state right as it should be and nothing will change. Abortion is the most selfish thing a person can do. It doesn't. I am very good with my birth control, which is easy to get. I'm ready for children so if I have a baby, it will be a day to celebrate.
Source: dallasnews - 🏆 18. / 71 Read more »

What GOP-Nominated Justices Said About Roe to Senate PanelA draft opinion obtained by Politico suggests that a majority of the court is prepared to strike down the Roe v. Wade decision from 1973, leaving it to the states to determine a woman’s ability to get an abortion
Source: nbcchicago - 🏆 545. / 51 Read more »

Abortion by pill figures to rise if Supreme Court overturns Roe v. WadeAbortion by pill is used to terminate at least 54% of pregnancies in the U.S., a number expected to rise even higher if Roe v Wade is overturned. Will such a drug have a greater impact on your health? look at my boobs😘 Global Crisis live forum is on (100 languages available)
Source: USATODAY - 🏆 100. / 63 Read more »

GOP playbook on abortion is to push Democrats on restrictions and contort their wordsRepublicans are trying to shift and deflect attention away from the Supreme Court's conservative majority weighing the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Source: WBUR - 🏆 274. / 63 Read more »

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand calls for nuking filibuster ahead of vote to codify Roe v. WadeSen. Kirsten Gillibrand advocated for eliminating the filibuster ahead of a Senate vote on legislation to codify the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. Only way to achieve Codification : Break the Filibuster A simple majority should never be able to make a national law. That’s not why states join a union
Source: WashTimes - 🏆 235. / 63 Read more »