What constitutional justification is there for this? If you actually read the Constitution, issues relating to the issues involved here (privacy, health care)are the domain of the states by the 10th amendment! Overturning Roe would not outlaw abortion, it would merely move the debate into its rightful place, state capitols. Abortion is not going to end by laws and governments anyway. People are having fewer and fewer abortions every year because of ultrasound technology advances which make the idea of killing your unborn baby less attractive.

I wish they would have made the ruling on 5th, 9th and 10th Amendment grounds, (right to property; rights not in constitution can't be denied; rights not in constitution are reserved to the people) but its still a very important ruling. It continues the logic that led to the end of slavery. You own the products of your own body, not anyone else.

Both sides in this very emotional, very polarizing discussion believe they are morally, defensively right in their viewpoint, and argue incessantly and incomprehensibly about the merits of their own side. This is one of the clearest examples of legislating from the bench. If this law was so right and so necessary, there is a process set out in the federal Constitution, and each state Consitution to accomplish it. Pro-choicers guard the existence of this ruling jealously because they know it cannot stand up to the test of referendum. So any incremental victory on the part of the pro-life movement, makes their hold on this sacred (in their minds) law precarious. The last thing they would allow is for this to be voted on by the general polity, whom they regard as incapable of deciding something so nuanced and obviously correct on their own. Harry Blackmun's opinion (appointee of the well-known liberal democrat president Richard Milhouse Nixon) became the law of the land in one of the most grevious abuses of power in history. And so it goes . . .

That people still argue about this is a mystery to me. But in terms of historical importance, it is overrated. Plessy vs. Furgeson, Brown vs. Board of education. . .there are at least 5 or 6 landmark cases that have really shaped this country far more than this one.

The discussion of this case should have nothing to do with whether you think abortion is a moral or immoral act- that is why there is a legislature! If you think abortion should be legal then pass laws democratically protecting the woman's ability to terminate the life of her unborn child. Come on people... where in the Bill of Rights was there ever the inclination of the right to terminate another's life? No one with knowledge of constitutional law can even defend it with a straight face! Not to mention it is quite obvious what the framers of the constitution were intending just by quickly browsing the Federalist Papers. Madison the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION never even suggested a Bill Of Rights and originally argued against it! That being said can you imagine an amendment to the constitution stating All woman have the right to terminate the lives of their unborn children? In reality people are clueless when it comes to constitutional law. The seed of social contract theory that eventually flipped our government inside out was planted in the 1905 Lochner v NY decision. Conservative justices looked to prevent the democratic will of the people and the laws that imposed labor sanctions on businesses by ruling them unconstitutional. Justice Peckham subsequently stuck down the laws insisting that in the spirit of the constitution there is a liberty of contract and laws limiting the number of hours individuals could be forced to work violated that contract. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes dissented vehemently stating that the justices were acting as a super-legislature and reading their conservative economic policies into the constitution. At THAT very moment however the course of our form of government changed forever. The infusion of a constitutional philosophy that was no longer predicated upon existing moral traditions- that solved disputes in the legislature democratically for the common good- but a neutral procedural form of rights based contract theory that professed to organize society by protecting a series of individual rights- built upon the precedent set in Lochner. The judiciary now reads the spirit of its own philosophy into the document itself erecting rights that extend from human desire and not some moral tradition. This living process was further promoted through Griswald v Conn. to Roe v. Wade and on to Lawrence v. Texas. Today we have the religion of anarchic individualism constitutionally protected through a concept of neutral procedure. We are simply subverting the democratic process in favor of minority rule. We The People no longer govern ourselves! This is the exact OPPOSITE of the founders intent and inherently untenable as a form of government. But not until horrific byproducts (truly showcased by abortion) of this philosophy hit home do people start realizing that we are now living under a soft tyranny to which they have relinquished all control to protect ourselves and our children. Feminazis argue that it's our freedom to choose but do they support totally legalizing drug use? I ask if a child is in the process of birth but the murderer.. I mean... suppose-to-be-mom chooses to undergo the really good butcher abortion- the partial birth style- say after 8 months, and during the process when the scissors are already jammed in the skull of the child and the baby is partially out it accidentally pops completely out, living, breathing, and crying on the table, can the doctor continue with the murder and call it an abortion? Or does the doctor have the obligation now to help the child with the scissors jammed in their head actually live!? In India they fully deliver the child and for a couple bucks snap the neck of the females- is that a choice the woman should have too? I mean she shouldn't be OBLIGATED TO FEED THE CHILD OR DO ANYTHING she didn't want to, right? Ask Susan Smith. She performed two very late term abortions for her love of a boyfriend. The biggest problem with the procedural constitutional approach is that it cuts off debate. We no longer are a vibrant society that can hack out it's disagreements democratically in a devolved federal system. Ridiculous rulings like Roe v Wade have not only lead to the death of millions of babies but freedom all together.

I think abortion is a travesty. I will NEVER condone it no matter what. It does not matter if you are female or male, there is no justification for murder. It is NOT the baby's fault no matter the reason that you would even consider abortion. I hope I am not out of line when I say this stuff, but it is how I feel. I will not apologize for my opinion on this subject.

I find the practice of abortion to be morally repugnant and would never ask my significant other to have one. However, I believe that in some cases abortion is necessary, such as in the case of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. I believe that we should discourage abortion at all costs, but we should not deny a woman her right to choose what has got to be a difficult option.

If you can't trust a person with a choice, How can you trust them with a child? Maybe adoption might be an answer, but did it ever occur to some of you Anti-abortion pro-lifers, that some people are so psychologically damaged that they would not be able to give the child up for adoption or they would become so disgruntled they would go on a murder spree? And what if it's a case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother? Sometimes, People need the right to choose!

This was the correct decision. I see billboards in my area with this statement: The right to life and liberty begins at conception. If you accept that, then you accept the following, from the perspective of the woman: The right to life and liberty ENDS at conception. Looking at it this way, you can see that an unborn shall not take precedence over the living if we are to remain consistent in the application of individual rights.

Snoopy, I wish you could say that to everybody in my current neighborhood. That's a very admirable position you had there. Roe v. Wade was the biggest step forward for women since Wyoming gave us the right to vote. It is crucial that all women are able to safely and legally make this very difficult choice if they feel they must - without the interference of anyone whose opinion they don't care about.

A step in the wrong direction.

Very important. While I think abortion is selfish and morally wrong myself, I still respect a woman's right to choose what she wants to do with her body.