[danpalmer]

They definitely did not.

RBG thought that Roe v Wade won for the wrong reasons, but didn't want to repeal it because of the damage she knew it would cause – she wanted to roll-forward rather than roll-back.

This court, or at least the conservative majority, are very much in favour of rolling-back, and I suspect are only vaguely in favour of letting the legislature pass laws because they know that there will be challenges to those laws that they can then get involved in, meanwhile they have shifted the overton window of women's rights.

[rhinoceraptor]

It's important to note that the idea that Roe was decided incorrectly, is a myth perpetuated by fedsoc and other reactionaries. And the liberal legal academics did nothing to counter it.

[keneda7]

I am confused here. Are you saying these are all myths?

https://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade-aborti...

https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsbur...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader...

Seems to me RGB did feel that ruling was weak and should have decided based on equal protections not privacy.

[rhinoceraptor]

Do you really think they wouldn't still overturn if it was decided based on equal protection? We should not fall into the trap of deifying the court. They are not above politics and they never have been.

And they didn't rule against it because of the privacy angle. They ruled against it because they are trying to destroy the jurisprudence of substantive due process and unenumerated rights, because it serves their reactionary politics.

[danpalmer]

To clarify, I think it was the right decision, for a weak but correct reason. Ideally it would have been decided for the reasons of bodily autonomy.

[thehappypm]

It’s not a myth.

[rhinoceraptor]

Only if you buy in to the reactionary attack on substantive due process in general. And it's a mistake to think if Roe were decided any other way, that it still wouldn't have been overturned. Reactionaries do a great job of smuggling their politics as socially acceptable, fictional legal frameworks like textualism, even though they clearly abandon that whenever it is in conflict with their politics.