Mark Small

I just returned from dinner. I'm about to go out on the deck & hope to relax a few before (maybe) rain hits. Roe's foundation is sound. Justice Blackmun wanted to address history & rights & he did both. How I arrive at what I do? Might be a different matter.

Roe became law in early 70s! What renders stare decisis moot? A case which was argued BADLY. I din even do pre law at Cornell, how come I know about this I thought eveyone educated did, and a member of the Bar does not?

Roe was based on rights as recognized in earlier cases. Griswold v Connecticut, a 1965 case, discussed the right to privacy. Hamilton argued against a "bill of rights" for fear ppl would delineate rights we had not. 1/2

I've read a bit farther in our history than the 1970s. Justice Goldberg, in concurrence in Griswold, wrote our right to privacy is protected by the 9th amendment. Read that Amendment & it might augment your undergrad ed'n.

Sigh. Did I take issue with GRISWOLD? I DID NOT. I said, privacy was FINE FOR GRISWOLD. But not for ROE! Go back and read that tweet again!

You relied upon stare decisis & implied it was ignored - somehow - by a 1970s case. Our rights - & the right to privacy is bedrock - are protected. 1/3

When the Constitution was ratified, abortion was legal. It HAD been legal. That was the point of Blackmun's decision. No case specifically had ruled on it from the Court. 2/3

https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/abortion/ten-legal-reasons-to-reject-roe …