Roe decision, More about process than abortion.

 COURT DISMISSES MAKING LAW FROM BENCH

DOES NOT OUTLAW ABORTION

There is much hysteria over the decision of the Supreme court to overturn the 1973 Roe vs Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. While this issue has been a divisive and controversial topic for over 50 years, it is more about deciding cases based on the written understanding of the text of the constitution and the bill of rights.

These justices have all been considered textualists, which means that the constitutions meaning is in the words. They believe that those who add rights or find rights and embellish federal  government power that is not in the text have overstepped their power. If we are to have any law that is effective and respected, this has to be the approach, or we will be giving this 9 member court almost imperial power.

So, now abortion is again a state issue, and will be determined by state representatives and referendums. Any power not specifically delegated to the federal government is a state issue to resolve. This is the great relief valve for controversial issues and if the time comes when a super majority of the states legalize abortion, then it could be possible to pass a constitutional amendment to make it the law of the land.

This is the proper way to make changes for the whole country.

It must be mentioned that the court may very well have decided that any other decision would have subjected them to endless debates and decisions on this matter. The question of viability was at the root of the case in question and this is an ever moving target, brought about changes in technology.

Then another consideration is the insistence of the pro abortion crowd to be ever expanding this right to were they considered abortion to be an option up until the day of birth and some have even made the case for after birth possibilities. It seems it was an issue that would never be resolved by the Federal court.

While many believe that a change of the make-up of the court will change this decision, it is very unlikely, because even Ruth Bader Ginsburg recognized that the original decision opened a can of worms that would never be settled, it would have remained an issue forever.

I suspect that many federal lawmakers on both sides of the political spectrum are quietly feeling relieved that this will not be something for them to decide in the future.