That's a shame, because Roe v. Wade was not a valid interpretation of the Constitution; indeed, it wasn't an interpretation of the Constitution at all. It needs to be overturned, no matter how many Americans say otherwise, for the sake of the integrity of the Court and the Constitution that it interprets.
No. We're not going to violate the rights of women and set back the clock for the sake of your own interpretation of the constitution.
Many pro-choice people (including Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) have said that Roe v. Wade was a poorly written decision. On that basis alone, it should be overturned. And later decisions such as Planned Parenthood vs. Casey are still on the books, so striking down Roe won't take away a "woman's right to an abortion." I despise abortion, and consider myself pro-life, but I also have respect for legal precedent.
No. The case was settled decades ago. Why strike down such a decision that has monumental consequences for the sake of it being "poorly written"?
Repeating myself:
Roe needs to be overturned (along with
Planned Parenthood v. Casey) for the sake of the integrity of the Court and the Constitution that it interprets. A "monumental consequence" of keeping these precedents is that the Court is going to continue to be politicized and we're going to continue to have major battles over the confirmation of new Justices.
Regarding the fact that these cases are decades old, the Supreme Court had a precedent called
Plessy v. Ferguson that lasted for over 55 years before it was overturned in
Brown v. Board of Education. More than once the Court has overturned a precedent that was decades old. The most crucial question is, when the Court overturns a precedent, is the new decision a better interpretation of the Constitution than the old one.
