Like many, I've sometimes changed my mind on topics when presented with credible information/research. One example is the death penalty.
I'm a liberal who was formerly very pro-gun control but have moved pretty firmly into the gun rights club. The people normally labeled crazies that comment on every new article in my area actually had something to do with my change of heart. Also a few personal experiences and marrying someone in law enforcement.
I've also come to realize that there are some bad apples in law enforcement. Just because my spouse is as ethical as they come doesn't mean that his brother's and sisters act the same.
Lastly, while I still firmly believe in a woman's right to a safe, legal and accessible abortion, law school has taught me that Roe v. Wade was a pretty horrible legal decision when it comes to interpreting precedent and the constitution.
I would suggest that anyone analyzing major issues seek out primary sources. Read actual court decisions not just the press on it.
Can you explain that in more detail?
I agree with Blonde Lawyer on this, that a woman has a right to a safe, legal and accessible abortion, but that Roe v. Wade was a stretch constitutionally. I'll try to explain as best as I recall, but it's been a while since I studied this.
There is a seminal article in the Harvard Law Review written in 1890 by Warren and Brandeis called
"A Right to Privacy", which essentially argued that we have a fundamental right to privacy. (They were mostly concerned about reporters.)
This right to privacy was later built on for other cases, such as the right for married women to use contraceptives. Roe states that there is a fundamental right to privacy in the due process clause of the 14th amendment as if it had been already very clearly decided and known, which until that point had not been clearly established. The majority opinion wrote the right to liberty was "broad enough to encompass" a right to abortion. I was taught (by a
privacy law expert that supported women's rights and thus might not have incentive to say this) that the case was basically policy-making. Many states had laws on the books prohibiting abortion. In order to overturn those, there needs to be a constitutional challenge (or federal law, although as a side note, the federal government is only permitted to legislate in certain areas, such as interstate commerce, and the bill of rights retains the right to legislate in all others to the states - there is some question outstanding as to whether this could be a federal law), and it’s arguable whether the privacy right read into the 14th amendment was sufficient.
Another problem with Roe v. Wade is that it divided a pregnancy into trimesters, placing more emphasis on the rights of the woman versus the fetus depending on where a woman was in pregnancy. A woman had more right to privacy/autonomy when in the first trimester (at time it was before the fetus was viable), while in the third trimester more weight was given to the state’s interest in the life of the fetus, when it could survive outside the mother. One issue with this trimester approach is that due to scientific and technological advances, the viability of the fetus outside of the mother keeps changing. Now we can save babies at say, 24 weeks.
But, know that Roe v Wade is no longer the case upon which the right to abortions rests. It's Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which was a Pennsylvania case that struck down only spousal notification requirement (those women who wouldn’t want to notify their husbands were likely those whose husbands might resort to abuse if told of their plans). This case was incredibly messy, in that there was really no majority opinion. There was an opinion written by three justices which is taken as the lead opinion, because the other 4 justices joined different parts to reach a majority. 2 would have struck down everything and 2 would have upheld everything. In a rare situation, this opinion overturned parts of Roe v. Wade on the trimester formula (stare decisis is latin for “to stand by that which is already decided” which is the principal that when a point has been decided, it forms precedent which generally should be followed. SCOTUS is particularly reluctant to acknowledge it was wrong, so it often talks around how it’s not overturning a decision even when it is). The new rule focused on viability and prohibited states from entirely banning abortions, requiring an exception for the health/life of the mother. States were also permitted to pass laws regulating abortions to protect the woman’s health in the first trimester, although not to limit access. The court changed the scrutiny of abortion regulations (such as reasonability of a law requiring a waiting period) from heightened to undue burden.
The decision upheld both the 24 hour waiting period (for everyone) and parental consent for minors. To many from a privileged background, this may not seem like a big deal…but – for a parent of very low income, they are not able to take time off from work not just once, but twice, in order to be present for their daughter’s abortion. As a result, many low income parents tell their kid that it’s their problem with which to deal. This decision infuriated me, so in law school (in Pennsylvania where this case was), I did pro bono work helping these women to obtain a judicial bypass (many of whom actually showed up to the meeting with me and the hearing with the judge with a stepmom – but had to do this process because the dad/mom were not available).
Sorry this is long. I found privacy law in general interesting when I was in law school, so feel free to ask questions if you’re confused and I’ll try to clarify it better.