Yes, regarding fundamental mistakes, absolutely. The reasoning didnt emerge just now, people just didnt want to talk about anything more nuanced than being “pr

Yes, regarding fundamental mistakes, absolutely. The reasoning didnt emerge just now, people just didnt want to talk about anything more nuanced than being “pro-life” or “prochoice” and “dont say the a-word”. If you read the case you’ll realize “hold up, what? I’ve been emotionally led my whole life based on this steamy pile of shaky logic?” You’ll realize that the same outcome could have been created with more durable consensus. Durable meaning acceptable, less divisive, not based on time. But now, a major roadblock to evaluating things this way has crumbled. The primary issues are: - How the multiple unrelated case(s) got to the Supreme Court and were consolidated for Roe v Wade - How the Supreme Court acted as a super legislature creating frameworks and edicts (it does this sometimes but they are guidelines, prongs for likelihood of compliance. In this case they were completely uncircumventable rights and restrictions, the area of Congress), instead of finding a part of the constitution to support it. Its out of character and relies on the difficulty of overruling the Supreme Court. - How Congress has had 50 years or more to do or even just try anything on this topic, but didnt. (Risky for politicians doesnt mean the court can do their job) - The next time the topic was revisited in Casey, the court was relying on the concept of Roe being precedent while then altering that precedent for a modified framework anyway. (The new draft uses that logic to dismantle Casey before dismantling Roe. And it doesnt take an opposite extreme view, it just gets the federal government out of it and returns it to state regulation. If Congress had opined at all, ever, it would have just returned it to Congress’ national laws, but since it never has then there is nothing to supersede state regulation.)