4 ms·
> Almost every serious non-partisan legal scholar agrees that Roe v. Wade is on tenuous legal footing. Citation needed. Also, would love to see how you are def
by jasonlotito 4y ago
> Almost every serious non-partisan legal scholar agrees that Roe v. Wade is on tenuous legal footing.
Citation needed. Also, would love to see how you are defining "serious non-partisan legal scholar." Seems like a whole bunch of adjectives you can use to disregard someone. As it stands, you can literally be talking about one person and be telling the truth depending on how you define those words.
- dvt 4y agoPretty good article that explains the shaky legal foundation of Roe v. Wade: https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-05-03/how-roe-vs-wade-went-wrong-broad-new-right-to-abortion-rested-on-a-shaky-legal-foundation https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-05-03/how-roe-vs...
- akvadrako 4y agoEven Ruth Ginsburg stated the reasoning in Roe was incorrect.
- robonerd 4y agoDid she say the reasoning was wrong, or merely that it wasn't ideal? As far as I know, she took umbrage with Roe v Wade being physician focused rather than woman focused. In other words, that the provides for a physicians right to perform abortions more than it does a woman's right to receive abortions.
- dvt 4y ago> She also argued for a different legal rationale, one based on equal rights for women rather than privacy. Laws banning abortion had been written by men and were enforced by men, but their burden fell entirely on women. RBG was a brilliant legal mind and invoking the Equal Protection Clause (which is what she argued for) would have been orders of magnitude more robust than invoking some vague "right to privacy" that's barely in the Constitution to begin with.