Roe v Wade v Sanity > Likes and Comments

It was bound to be overturned since it really is not in the Constitution (and I believe most Constitutional Scholars agree with that). The other ones you cited are more firmly there I believe but I also don't believe they are going after anything else. It also gives it back to the States to decide the law which is where is should have been in the first place. Congress punted it way back and should have don't something definitive then. I think Congress could even make a law now (but I doubt there is the political will to do that).

I don't think in the end it is going to change much of anything at all. Most (I think) people believe there should be access to abortion the question then goes to the details of what that means.

That it was LEAKED is a huge issue as well. I guess we'll see if anything come of that investigation.

I agree with Bill and Hillary Clinton. “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.”

You're missing the enormous discussion thread (over 450 comments so far) on my blog.

Also, the point you tried to make has been thoroughly debunked there. This is Alito citing 17th century English legal precedent to try to overturn the entire basis of the Enlightenment, of which the US Constitution is part.

Oh, I may pop on over there then and read the comments. Thank you Mr. Stross.