Kakki wrote: > > Deb and Vince, > > I'll try to find the legal analysis I read - it was very interesting and > exhaustively cited both the Constitution and Roe v. Wade to support its > conclusion. I hate to try remember the legal gist of it without reading it > again, but there seems to be something inherent in the Roe v. Wade decision > which prevents *any* court from overturning it. The analysis said that > *maybe* a president/executive action alone could overturn it, but even then, > there were, arguably, provisions in the Constitution which would preclude > that.
I'm very curious about this, too, Kakki. My guess is that the writer's point is that it would be extremely difficult to directly overturn Roe v. Wade, and the many challenges so far have proven that to be true, but it's hard to imagine that Roe v. Wade, or any Supreme Court decision, could *never* be overturned. If it is ever overturned, I think it will be in some way that we can't foresee now. As far as a presidential order overturning such a long-standing Supreme Court decision... wow, I can't imagine that ever happening just because the negative political fallout would be so intense. There may be ways for Roe v. Wade to be undermined, though, sneakily and bit by bit, in the same way that long-standing laws regarding privacy, search warrants, and rights to legal representation are currently being undermined by Attorney General Ashcroft. One of Bush's first acts as president, on the first day I think, was to stop government funding of overseas family planning clinics, so he's made it very clear what his agenda is regarding a woman's right to choose. Debra Shea
