Roe v Wade and the Supreme Court

Roe v Wade is undoubtedly one of the most famous cases in Supreme Court history. It is a landmark decision that has had a lasting impact on reproductive rights in the United States. However, opinions on the case are divided. Some believe that the ruling was a necessary step towards protecting a woman’s right to choose, while others argue that it was an overreach by the Supreme Court that has had negative consequences.

Personally, I fall into the former category. I believe that the result of Roe v Wade was correct, but I also agree with Clarence Thomas that the Supreme Court’s reasoning was flawed. The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution was meant to grant procedural, not substantive, rights to the people of this country. The right of a woman to make her own personal decision on her pregnancy had nothing to do with procedure. In that sense, Justice Goldberg’s concurrence in Griswold v Connecticut provides a better legal framework for Roe v Wade.

Griswold v Connecticut nullified a ridiculous law that made it a crime to dispense a contraceptive. Due process had nothing to do with it unless you believe in the concept of substantive due process, which I find inherently contradictory. It is not a tenable legal argument. However, if both Griswold and Roe v Wade had been decided according to the dictates of the Ninth Amendment, I believe that Justice Thomas would have agreed with the majority, or at least his children would have been declared bastards.

The first eight amendments to the Constitution were meant to protect us from the federal government, not the states. It was a legal fiction, invented by William Douglas, that they should be applied to the states as morality changed over time. That was never intended. The concepts ingrained in them could be applied, but not literally applied. The Bill of Rights was not the first ten amendments, it was the first eight. The Third Amendment makes that clear. The Tenth Amendment reserved to the states those rights not specifically ceded to the federal government. The drafters of the Ninth Amendment wanted to make sure that basic human rights not mentioned specifically were retained by the people. What right could be more basic than the right to buy a condom? What right could be more fundamental than the right to marry the person of your choice?

It is important to note that the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v Wade was not based solely on the ninth amendment. The court also relied on the fourteenth amendment’s due process clause, which has been the source of much debate. Some argue that the clause protects substantive rights, while others believe that it only protects procedural rights. However, the majority opinion in Roe v Wade made it clear that the court was not relying solely on the due process clause. The court also recognized a woman’s right to privacy under the ninth and fourteenth amendments.

In conclusion, while I may have some reservations about the legal reasoning behind Roe v Wade, I believe that the decision was ultimately correct. The right of a woman to make her own personal decision on her pregnancy is a basic human right that should be protected. It is my hope that the Supreme Court will continue to uphold this right, and that future decisions will be made based on sound legal principles that respect both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.