Should Roe v Wade be overturned?

[DrAdams]

Yes

No

[nightdrot]

Roe v. Wade has been overturned. Though its' overturning - which I supported - has probably meant less than most of those who favored that overturning imagined.

In fact, the repeal of Roe did nothing more than shift the debate back to the states. Even as a nominal constitutional right, abortion was being increasingly restricted under the cases that followed Roe. Things like the three trimester breakdown and prohibition of "late term" abortions happened while Roe was in effect.

The late liberal Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said that while she had supported the outcome of Roe, she actually expected that it would be overturned because it was, as she said in an interview, "poorly reasoned and poorly written." It found a "right" derivative of another "right" and then found not in the language of the Constitution, but in its' "prenumbra."

This was too amorphous and, as noted, its erosion began almost after the initial 1973 ruling. Throw in that the case took no account of science - it begging the question of when life begins and other such matters. The ruling was written on whole cloth and it is only in the nature of glacial change of America's constitutional system that it took as long as it did to overturn. (Roe was very much anomalous in terms of the rapidity of its change to constitutional interpretation to that point.)

Finally, the "erosion" of other rights would have to be based on some legal case. There would have to be shown some harm that would be a cause of action for a court case. With abortion, it was the question of what Roe called "potential life." (Please note, this was Roe's pseudo-science. There is no such thing, in biology, as "potential life.")

With gay marriage, or transgender rights, there would have to be so harm provoking a "cause of action" that could then result in a court case. This is unlikely. The most relevant argument might be those transgender athletes that wish to compete in women's sports. However, there is - not even now - a constitutional right to participate in sporting events, so as simple legal matter, you cannot remove that which does not exist.

Put it all together - and again, the recent ruling actually does address the question of other "rights" - and the odds that there will be a stampede of cases overturning other rights is extremely unlikely. It also to be recalled that no right is absolute - in free speech there are limits on libel, slander, false advertising, etc., even the right to life allows for exceptions of self-defense, etc. Thus always that rights debates are held in the "gray areas," and are rarely about absolutes.

It finally being noted that American culture would not lend itself to a dramatic long term erosion of rights. It being well said that Americans are ardent about rights. Not so much about responsibility and accountability in the exercise of those rights.

Add it all up and the case that the abortion ruling is the harbinger of the erosion of rights to come is mostly hand wringing and not reasoned analysis. Again, it being added that the ruling itself even addressed the question and assured that it was limited to abortion. This abortion case was ultimately about where the issues of rights are debated - states vs. the Federal government. Not that rights exist at all.

[QuietRunner]

Restored

all government abortion funding banned

Birth control fully funded to include free condoms

[Notherndude84]

It was
It should Not have been

[msc545]

It was already overturned.

[goaded]

Restored.

[Anonymous]

No...