it appears that the ruling was 7 - 2. with dissenting opinions stating that there is no constitutional provision for abortion. and laws already on the books against it as far back as the revolutionary war meant it was clear states did not want it legal. but the majority opinion seems to be 'advisory' which seems to imply that states keep the right to regulate abortion or implying that a state can retain the right to terminate a pregnancy. there were also two judges that retired during the review so it's possible that it could have not passed
the sections Dissents and Justiciability seem to be where the pivot point is whether it could be argued against or argued for continuation as is. this is just from a cursory reading of the facts. i'm mostly against abortion so that's my filter. but it is also apparent that the women involved as plaintiff both complained later that they were mislead and were not in fact, for abortion but rather against it as it is so easily obtainable today. according to the articles, arguments by people on both sides of the aisle have complained about how it was done and a variety of judges have expressed their feeling that it should be looked at again. with a variety of ideas of how it should be worked over. i think they used the words strict scrutiny. no one seems to want to tackle the issue though trump and company did take a step in that direction, something about the helms amendment
view the rest of the comments →
woadowl ago
it appears that the ruling was 7 - 2. with dissenting opinions stating that there is no constitutional provision for abortion. and laws already on the books against it as far back as the revolutionary war meant it was clear states did not want it legal. but the majority opinion seems to be 'advisory' which seems to imply that states keep the right to regulate abortion or implying that a state can retain the right to terminate a pregnancy. there were also two judges that retired during the review so it's possible that it could have not passed
https://infogalactic.com/info/Roe_v._Wade
https://infogalactic.com/info/Doe_v._Bolton
the sections Dissents and Justiciability seem to be where the pivot point is whether it could be argued against or argued for continuation as is. this is just from a cursory reading of the facts. i'm mostly against abortion so that's my filter. but it is also apparent that the women involved as plaintiff both complained later that they were mislead and were not in fact, for abortion but rather against it as it is so easily obtainable today. according to the articles, arguments by people on both sides of the aisle have complained about how it was done and a variety of judges have expressed their feeling that it should be looked at again. with a variety of ideas of how it should be worked over. i think they used the words strict scrutiny. no one seems to want to tackle the issue though trump and company did take a step in that direction, something about the helms amendment
https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions#Constitutional