Reversing Roe v. Wade

Yesterday brought the bombshell news, via a leaked draft of a Supreme Court ruling, that the Court is likely to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision from 50 years ago, and take away the Federal Government’s protection of women’s rights to have an abortion. This, despite the fact that a large majority of our citizens are in favor of preserving that right. If the report comes to be true in the end, there’s nothing good to say about it. Given the current make-up of Congress and the Senate, there’s nothing our current lawmakers are likely to be able to do to negate such a decision.

There’s very little positive to say about this news, other than that an issue’s been created for the Democrats that could completely reverse the so-far predicted Republican landslide victory in the November midterm elections. As usual, I choose to be hopeful. We’ll see!

A huge question I have is whether a Supreme Court decision can be unconstitutional. Catholicism and several Protestant sects prohibit abortion, but Judaism, Islam and other Protestant branches do not. The First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the favoring of one religion over another. How can reversing Rowe not be seen as a violation of the Constitution? I’m sure such an argument was made against undoing Rowe, but it seems that the conservative Justices weren’t swayed by it—very upsetting!

I sure hope that this issue becomes a powerful and winning one for the Democrats in the immediate future!

6 thoughts on “Reversing Roe v. Wade

  1. I’m with you, George: hoping this is the alarum bell a sleepy public needs—and will use to good effect in November.

    Your question about the Constitutional validity of such a ruling is well put. That’s what’s so distressing about this radical court: their interpretation of the Constitution is whatever fits their plans. I hate to think what they’d do to a case that directly challenges the separation of church and state. They’re not so keen on precedents and settled law.


  2. A Supreme Court decision can be unconstitutional, if the Court says it is. Roe has been Constitutional for fifty years, but it may be found to be unconstitutional by the current court this year.


    1. I guess I agree. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what’s Constitutional, according to our laws. It just seems to me that reversing Roe v. Wade ignores the free exercise of religion according to the First Amendment–it favors some religions over others, which shouldn’t be “kosher”. But who’ll be able to enforce that, except for the Supreme Court. A Catch 22, if there ever was one!


    2. Thanks! I agree that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what’s Constitutional according to our laws. I just don’t see how reversing Roe v. Wade doesn’t violate the religious freedom according to the First Amendment. However, only the Supreme Court could make that judgement–a Catch 22, if there ever was one!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s