{"id":1072977,"date":"2021-12-01T14:29:38","date_gmt":"2021-12-01T19:29:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1072977"},"modified":"2021-12-01T14:29:48","modified_gmt":"2021-12-01T19:29:48","slug":"why-jurists-felt-roe-v-wade-was-a-horrible-legal-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/why-jurists-felt-roe-v-wade-was-a-horrible-legal-decision\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Jurists Felt Roe V. Wade Was A Horrible Legal Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"float:left\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">22<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fwhy-jurists-felt-roe-v-wade-was-a-horrible-legal-decision%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1072977&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>Now that the case <em>Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/em> has come before the Supreme Court, which may lead to the revocation of the infamous 1973 <em>Roe v. Wade<\/em> decision, it may be worthwhile to examine <em>Roe <\/em>with a brief examination of why many famous jurists believed it was a horrible legal decision.<\/p>\n<p><em>Roe, <\/em>in which Justice Harry A. Blackmun, writing the opinion for the majority, ruled that the \u201cdue process\u201d clause in the Fourteenth Amendment included an implicit \u201cright to privacy,\u201d followed in the footsteps of the contraceptive case <em>Griswold v. Connecticut<\/em> from 1965, in which leftist Supreme Court Justice William Douglas invented privacy rights, which he had discovered in \u201cpenumbras, formed by emanations from\u201d the Bill of Rights.<\/p>\n<p>Writing for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2003, Attorney Susan E. Wills <a href=\"https:\/\/www.usccb.org\/issues-and-action\/human-life-and-dignity\/abortion\/ten-legal-reasons-to-reject-roe\">explained<\/a> that the Supreme Court exceeded its constitutional authority in <em>Roe v. Wade<\/em> because it substituted the policy preferences of the Supreme Court for what was written in law; struck down criminal laws of Texas and Georgia which outlawed certain abortions by finding that they violated a \u201cright of privacy\u201d which is not mentioned in the Constitution, and misrepresented the history of abortion by claiming it had been widely practiced and unpunished until the Victorian era.<\/p>\n<p>It ignored condemnation of abortion as far back as the Hippocratic Oath, which stated, \u201cI will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.\u201d<\/p>\n<p><em>Roe<\/em> also misrepresented the common law of England by claiming \u201cit now appears doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus\u201d as opposed to William Blackstone\u2019s Commentaries on the Laws of England, which stated, &nbsp;\u201cLife is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as the infant is able to stir in the mother\u2019s womb.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Blackstone continued, \u201cFor if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb \u2026 this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In 1992, the Supreme Court decided <em>Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey<\/em>, stating that the test used to examine abortion laws should use an \u201cundue burden\u201d standard, arguing that a law was invalid if its \u201cpurpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Yet Casey actually conceded that Roe was not necessarily sound law: \u201cWe do not need to say whether each of us, had we been Members of the Court when the valuation of the state interest came before it as an original matter, would have concluded, as the Roe Court did, that its weight is insufficient to justify a ban on abortions prior to viability even when it is subject to certain exceptions. The matter is not before us in the first instance, and, coming as it does after nearly 20 years of litigation in Roe\u2019s wake we are satisfied that the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe\u2019s resolution of the issue, but the precedential force that must be accorded to its holding.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Chief Justice William Rehnquist <a href=\"https:\/\/www.usccb.org\/issues-and-action\/human-life-and-dignity\/abortion\/upload\/Reactions-of-Legal-Scholars.pdf\">wrote<\/a> furiously in his Casey disent, \u201c<em>Roe v. Wade<\/em> stands as a sort of judicial Potemkin village, which may be pointed out to passers-by as a monument to the importance of adhering to precedent. But behind the fa\u00e7ade, an entirely new method of analysis, without any roots in constitutional law, is imported to decide the constitutionality of state laws regulating abortion. Neither stare decisis nor \u2018legitimacy\u2019 are truly served by such an effort.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Iconic conservative judge Robert Bork <a href=\"https:\/\/www.usccb.org\/issues-and-action\/human-life-and-dignity\/abortion\/upload\/Reactions-of-Legal-Scholars.pdf\">wrote<\/a>, \u201cBoth <em>Roe <\/em>and <em>[Planned Parenthood v.] Casey<\/em> are, in fact, crass violations of the rule of law; they are not rooted in any conceivable interpretation of the Constitution, and have nothing to do with \u2018constitutional terms.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Watergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox added, \u201cThe Justices read into the generalities of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a new \u2018fundamental right\u2019 not remotely suggested by the words.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Famed liberal Harvard professor John Hart Ely stated: \u201cWhat is frightening about <em>Roe<\/em> is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers\u2019 thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation\u2019s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-a-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it. And that, I believe \u2026 is a charge that can responsibly be<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Now that the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization has come before the Supreme Court, which may lead to the revocation of the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, it may be worthwhile to examine Roe with a brief examination of why many famous jurists believed it was a horrible legal decision.Roe, in which Justice Harry A. Blackmun, writing the opinion for the majority, ruled that the \u201cdue process\u201d clause in the Fourteenth Amendment included an implicit \u201cright to privacy,\u201d followed in the footsteps of the contraceptive case Griswold v. Connecticut from 1965, in which leftist Supreme Court Justice William Douglas invented privacy rights, which he had discovered in \u201cpenumbras, formed by emanations from\u201d the Bill of Rights.Writing for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2003, Attorney Susan E. Wills explained that the Supreme Court exceeded its constitutional authority in Roe v. Wade because it substituted the policy preferences of the Supreme Court for what was written in law; struck down criminal laws of Texas and Georgia which outlawed certain abortions by finding that they violated a \u201cright of privacy\u201d which is not mentioned in the Constitution, and misrepresented the history of abortion by claiming it had been widely practiced and unpunished until the Victorian era.It ignored condemnation of abortion as far back as the Hippocratic Oath, which stated, \u201cI will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.\u201dRoe also misrepresented the common law of England by claiming \u201cit now appears doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus\u201d as opposed to William Blackstone\u2019s Commentaries on the Laws of England, which stated, \u00a0\u201cLife is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as the infant is able to stir in the mother\u2019s womb.\u201dBlackstone continued, \u201cFor if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb \u2026 this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor.\u201dIn 1992, the Supreme Court decided Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, stating that the test used to examine abortion laws should use an \u201cundue burden\u201d standard, arguing that a law was invalid if its \u201cpurpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.\u201dYet Casey actually conceded that Roe was not necessarily sound law: \u201cWe do not need to say whether each of us, had we been Members of the Court when the valuation of the state interest came before it as an original matter, would have concluded, as the Roe Court did, that its weight is insufficient to justify a ban on abortions prior to viability even when it is subject to certain exceptions. The matter is not before us in the first instance, and, coming as it does after nearly 20 years of litigation in Roe\u2019s wake we are satisfied that the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe\u2019s resolution of the issue, but the precedential force that must be accorded to its holding.\u201dChief Justice William Rehnquist wrote furiously in his Casey disent, \u201cRoe v. Wade stands as a sort of judicial Potemkin village, which may be pointed out to passers-by as a monument to the importance of adhering to precedent. But behind the fa\u00e7ade, an entirely new method of analysis, without any roots in constitutional law, is imported to decide the constitutionality of state laws regulating abortion. Neither stare decisis nor \u2018legitimacy\u2019 are truly served by such an effort.\u201dIconic conservative judge Robert Bork wrote, \u201cBoth Roe and [Planned Parenthood v.] Casey are, in fact, crass violations of the rule of law; they are not rooted in any conceivable interpretation of the Constitution, and have nothing to do with \u2018constitutional terms.\u2019\u201dWatergate special prosecutor Archibald Cox added, \u201cThe Justices read into the generalities of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a new \u2018fundamental right\u2019 not remotely suggested by the words.\u201dFamed liberal Harvard professor John Hart Ely stated: \u201cWhat is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers\u2019 thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation\u2019s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-a-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it. And that, I believe \u2026 is a charge that can responsibly be leveled at no other decision of the past twenty years.\u2019\u201dHarvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe admitted, \u201cOne of the most curious things about Roe is that behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.\u201dThe Daily Wire is one of America\u2019s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":60,"featured_media":2315279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1072977","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1072977","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/60"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1072977"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1072977\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1072977"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1072977"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1072977"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}