The first four positions are, quite clearly, constitutionally correct. The fifth is not correct, and I would need more information about the sixth.
I essentially agree with this position.
On the first issue, if you would read his dissent there is no intent in overturning Roe v. Wade (something which would be out-of-line for a Circuit Court judge); he is merely interpreting the precedent of Roe before Stenberg and Casey, and making his judgment on a largely procedural basis.
The title of the claim is therefore spurious.
I'm sort of confused by what you are saying here.
The main precedents that deal with abortion cases now are Casey and Stenberg. So in a sense, Roe does not have the effect it did before, because these precedents are clarifications and extrapolations on the Roe decision.
Don't forget Doe vs Bolton. Roe vs Wade did not legalize "abortion on demand", Doe vs Bolton did.
Casey put the question of why abortions are constitutionally protected on a new and different base from Roe vs Wade.
Not that familiar with Stenberg vs Carhart so I won't comment on that one.
And yep, that
is what I meant.
