As much as it pains me to say it, yes. Judicial activism isn't ok just because you agree with the outcomes.
The legal reasoning in Roe is perfectly easy to understand as consistent with the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent if you aren't being willfully obtuse or acting in bad faith.
Why would I be "deliberately obtuse" or "act in bad faith" in order to criticize Roe? I already said that I agree with the effects of the ruling, as I'm pro-choice. But the argument that the Due Process Clause guarantees a right to an abortion is extremely flimsy-- and even if it were stronger, it wouldn't be strong enough to outweigh the fact that the police powers (which are delegated to the states) explicitly include the regulation of public health. Constitutionally speaking, it should be fairly clear that this is a state issue.
I'm happy to have a discussion about whether judicial activism is ever valid or called for, which is an interesting legal and philosophical question. But I don't take seriously the argument that Roe was not an activist decision.
What state interest is there in abortion, other than regulation to guarantee safe procedures? More specifically, what state interest justifies outlawing or severely restricting abortion?
Poll
