Read the cut and paste before, many times. But again, I don't see anyone headed for the Supreme Court any time in the near future--although there are some who would like to stack the court in hopes of getting the decision that they desire.<quoted text>Because abortion is now a business, a big money generator. If you listen to what the left considers some of the finest legal minds say about Roe v Wade, you'd be upset Reader:
Laurence Tribe— Harvard Law School.: "Behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."
The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law,” 87 Harvard Law Review 1, 7 (1973)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court:
“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court.… Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”
North Carolina Law Review, 1985
John Hart Ely — Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School
Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
“What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.”
“The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade,” 82 Yale Law Journal, 920, 935-937 (1973).
Richard Cohen — Washington Post
“[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision — the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution — strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy.”
“As a layman, it’s hard for me to raise profound constitutional objections to the decision. But it is not hard to say it confounds our common-sense understanding of what privacy is.
“If a Supreme Court ruling is going to affect so many people then it ought to rest on perfectly clear logic and up-to-date science. Roe , with its reliance on trimesters and viability, has a musty feel to it, and its argument about privacy raises more questions than it answers.
Roe “is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument.”
“Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument — but a bit of our soul as well.”
“Support Choice, Not Roe” Washington Post, October 19, 2005.
But, let's see some credible figures on abortion as a big money generator.