In 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States issued their decision in the case of Roe v. Wade. In the case, the court considered a Texas case, in which “The principal thrust of appellant’s attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal “liberty” embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras.”
The court should then have gone on to examine the Texas law against the constitution, and indeed that is what they said they would do in the opinion. Harry Blackmun, writing the majority opinion, stated “Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection.”
Unfortunately, what then proceeded was pages of opinion on ancient history and culture, complete with a prejudiced view. The resulting opinion was more akin to judicial social activism.
Recently, supporters of the Abortion Human Rights Act in Idaho, the bill that could actually end all legal abortion in the state by providing equal protection under the law for all human beings, met in Boise on September 19, 2019 to assess the bill from a legal perspective. In this talk by Scott Herndon, the author of the legislation and the director of Abolish Abortion Idaho, the Roe v. Wade opinion is examined in detail and is held up to the standards of the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Idaho.
Many will be surprised to find out that Roe v. Wade is not law, and the state of Idaho is not bound to respect the opinion by enforcing it as if it were law.