|
|
|
|
|
|
by joshstrange
1460 days ago
|
|
|
As if any of the "abortion bad" people rail against it only because it was a supreme court decision. We'd see the same fervor if it was a law. I've never hear someone say "I'd be fine with abortion if it was a law instead of a supreme court decision". I'm sure you can find someone making that argument but the vast majority (90%+) don't care. In fact I bet you could say "The Roe v Wade law" and most people wouldn't bat an eyelash because they just consider it "established precedent" and law vs court decision is irrelevant for them. |
|
|
> The seven to two judgment in Roe v. Wade declared “violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” a Texas criminal abortion statute that intolerably shackled a woman’s autonomy; the Texas law “except[ed] from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the [pregnant woman].” Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed[?]
[1] https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/
(edited to add forgotten source)