Other side agrees: “Roe was terribly reasoned”
A Fox News story yesterday reported:
The two vacancies on the Supreme Court have activists on both sides of the abortion debate sounding the death knell of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling overturning state laws that criminalized abortion.
But some legal scholars who support abortion rights say that may not be such a bad thing.
“Roe was terribly reasoned,” said Scott Powe, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “I think there’s some requirement under the Constitution that if you cannot explain a decision and its relationship with legal materials, it’s not a valid decision.”
Powe, who describes himself as “100 percent pro-choice,” is far from alone in his criticism of Roe. Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have made no secret of their revulsion toward the decision on legal grounds.
Even some who believe abortion should be legal are uncomfortable with the arguments in Roe.
Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School, asked some of the nation’s foremost constitutional law scholars to imagine how they might have written Roe. The results are compiled in “What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: America’s Top Legal Experts Rewrite America’s Most Controversial Decision.”
“Rights are most secure when they are supported by legislative enactment,” Balkin told FOXNews.com.
The right to abortion would have been better settled if it had been articulated through congressional channels, Balkin said….
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This article reminds me once again that this fight is not really won until people’s hearts are changed.
What nonsense! This is the killing of a human being. Has nothing to do with equality.