The pervading dishonesty of Roe v. Wade

Published



Roe v. Wade, which declared abortion to be constitutionally protected, and thus voided state laws banning it, was a horrible decision morally and legally. So when President Obama praises the decision on its 39th anniversary, he either shows a strikingly poor understanding of constitutional law (especially for a Harvard Law grad), or he buys into the dishonesty that pervades the opinion and its defenses.

Just look at what pro-choice legal scholars say. Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the ruling “heavy-handed judicial activism.” Laurence Tribe wrote “behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” Former Harry Blackmun clerk Edward Lazarus wrote “[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible.”

Full midterm coverage.Deeper analysis.

Get unlimited access to Washington Examiner's reporting, expert analysis, and coverage of the midterm elections.

Get Unlimited Access

Cancel anytime.