Roe v. Wade: Unsound Law

You are not signed in as a Premium user; we rely on Premium users to support our news reporting. Sign in or Sign up today!

Roe v. Wade has been law for nearly half a century, but even backers of abortion admit its legal reasoning is fundamentally flawed.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — a self-described feminist — has called the decision a "heavy-handed" intervention that "appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict."

According to Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Roe v. Wade author Justice Harry Blackmun, the ruling "borders on the indefensible."

University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt has said, "[It] is time to admit in public that Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor ... who will embrace the opinion itself, rather than the result."

In light of Roe's indefensible underlying rationale, George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen has declared that overturning the decision "would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary."

Even leftist activist Alan Dershowitz of Harvard has slammed the ruling, saying that "clear governing constitutional principles ... are not present" in Roe.

All these legal scholars agree: Roe v. Wade is unsound.

The decision is based on leftist ideology, not the Constitution.

In light of this, the Left recognizes the threat that a new, originalist Supreme Court nominee presents and are expected to fight tooth-and-nail to protect abortion.

Check out our full Supreme Court coverage

Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.

We rely on you to support our news reporting. Please donate today.