Skip to content

Revisiting Roe V Wade: SCOTUS Is Facing A Critical Decision

On Wednesday, December 1, 2001,  SCOTUS heard arguments pro/con the latest effort to change/overturn Roe v. Wade. Mississippi’s Solicitor General presented his case, which sought a 15-week limit rather than the 24-week limit past which a woman can’t legally abort.


The back-and-forth was interesting. A major part of the arguments related to the principle of stare decisis, or honoring precedent. This doctrine keeps the law evolutionary rather than revolutionary, so that absent compelling reasons a court doesn’t just dump whatever went before but must try to uphold precedent or at least reason in line with it, in this case fetal viability. No one can find a Constitutional principle upholding abortion so the next-best thing is to say it’s okay to abort before the fetus can survive outside the womb without heroic medical intervention. That test constitutes viability. Up to now that limit has been the 24 weeks.

"*" indicates required fields

Are you voting in the midterm elections?*
This poll gives you free access to our premium politics newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.


The other major goal of the case was to bring the abortion decision down to state level and get away from SCOTUS altogether. I favor this course of action since it is the only way most people will get what they want. There is no middle ground since the opposed sides disagree on the most fundamental points. Pro-lifers hold that the fetus is a human life from the moment of conception; pro-choicers say the whole decision to abort or not is the prospective mother’s to make and no one has any business interfering because it’s her sovereign body.


One way or the other, a lot of people are going to be upset with the decision.

This is perhaps the most political issue to go before the Court since Brown v. Board of Ed, and SCOTUS in the past has punted rather than decide definitively. In this case you couldn’t tell from their questions which justice was inclining which direction; it often seemed that the justices asked questions and pursued points at odds with what we thought their personal attitudes were toward abortion. Even Justice Thomas, usually silent, had several comments and questions.


As a Christian I favor no abortion but find myself in the position of the Founders on slavery – do what we can for now and try to get what we really want later on. I personally have long held that anything beyond the heartbeat + brainwave test is too late to abort. If I understand the science right, a fetus has both brainwave and heartbeat at about the third month. That should be the decision point, on the reasoning that once brainwaves are present it’s no longer a “fetus” but a “baby,” hence a person, hence aborting it would be murder.


How to square this thinking with my Christian beliefs? This way. God himself tolerated slavery for thousands of years, knowing that to get rid of it in human affairs the grounds would have to be carefully prepared. Jesus came first, then the need for a country rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics. With a population so oriented, arguments appealing to ethics could have a serious chance of catching on. Any earlier than that and the anti-slavery argument would only get perplexed stares from people who had always known slavery and really couldn’t imagine the world without it.


At any rate, SCOTUS decisions aren’t announced until June so we get to argue the whole thing all over again.


By Jack Rail


Jack Rail is a retired Army officer who writes mostly when something gets his goat.


Photo by Maria Oswalt on Unsplash

6 thoughts on “Revisiting Roe V Wade: SCOTUS Is Facing A Critical Decision”

  1. Not only religion says abortion is not humane. Hippocratic Oath for 2500 years prohibited abortive remedy. Involuntarily euthanasia is defined as murder everywhere. Almost every state had laws saying abortion was not humane. Denying continuation of a life without due process is prohibited for everyone else so why not for unborn kids denied inalienable right to life guaranteed by promise of our Declaration of Independence as a natural right. So how can a right to life be wrong and how can a wrong be called a right? There is no constitutional right to abort that is a wrong defined by Hippocrates 500 years before Jesus Christ was born.
    It is inhumane to involuntarily euthanized life, so by no stretch of any imagination can that wrong be right. It is illogical to say one’s life can be involuntary euthanized and not to call it murder, by definition. Murder is illegal. Sure, slaveholders disagreed, but history proved them heinous evil citizens on sadly way on wrong side of history, treating a group of humans as subhuman.

  2. As any honest Biologist will tell you, life, all life, begins at the moment of conception. Everything that governs the development of the fertilized ovum is present in that egg. 23 chromosomes from both parties are all there in that first moment. That is the beginning of life, it is undeniable. That’s the science. If you kill that life, you’ve just committed murder. There is no other word for it.

  3. As I’m sure many have come to find the religious precedent for for how God views an immoral act such as abortion or murder can be succinctly understood in the context of Genesis, where after the world became filled with violence God had to destroy mankind before it consumed the last eight living faithful people. In doing so he once again highlighted his love and longsuffering toward us, reemphasized that we are all related to one another, and left no doubt that he takes the act of one man murdering another with the greatest seriousness. If we could all see protecting life as that important, we wouldn’t be in need of this “discussion” and have a lot less blood on our hands. This is the time of the dispensation of grace and man can choose as he wishes. but as for God, he has already spoken no matter what the “supreme court” has to say.

  4. From CNS News: Pelosi on Possibility Court Overturns Roe: ‘It’s Really Scary–And I Say That as a Practicing Catholic’

    Continue practicing. Maybe you will get it right eventually.

  5. One thing is for sure; IF the Supreme Court does indeed overturn Roe v. Wade, the looney left only have themselves to blame. Instead of accepting that horrific decision as it was laid out at that time, they continued to expand the gruesome act past the First Trimester up to six months and on up to and including the unimaginable act of murdering the baby in the procedure called ‘partial birth’ abortion. Even the most apathetic and jaded Judiciary can not accept that genocide.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *