Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Precedents have been reversed before....Why does it seem unlikely that Roe v. Wade will ever be reversed?

Precedents have been reversed before........

Brown v. Board of Edu. reversed Plessy v. Ferguson

Roper v. Simmons reversed Stanford v. Kentucky

Why do legal experts suggest that it is unlikely that Roe v. Wade will ever be reversed?

What's so special about this precedent that makes it unreversable?

There's a pro-life majority on the SCOTUS.

Why does it seem so unlikely to happen?

20 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Pro-life people have an opinion, not a legal case.

  • 1 decade ago

    Let's just say for the sake of an argument that Roe v. Wade is reversed. What punishment would there be for a pregnant woman for illegally getting an abortion? Are we prepared to legislate their imprisonment? What about a doctor or a midwife, illegally performing it? No legislation would attempt to resolve this problem.

    Overturning Roe v. Wade is simply impractical.

    I also completely agree with bluecristy.

  • Ella
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Women have rights too.

    And if a woman doesn't want to bring a baby into this world, that's her choice.

    Women will still have abortions.

    At least at clinics it's in a more sterile environment done by professionals.

    If birth control pills were as accessible as a bottle of aspirin, maybe the number of abortions would go down.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    i don't think the court would hear it. the reasoning of the courts was sound on that decision so unless something really new comes along, why would the supreme court hear the case?

    maybe if the health care legislation as currently written get's passed maybe that could somehow open a new door for another law suit involving roe v wade maybe. i can't see a reason why the supreme court would hear a case concerning that decision. final answer alex.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    Should Roe vs Wade be reversed - the death of every pregnant woman and girl who dies from not being able to obtain an abortion will be forever laid at the feet of those who reverse the law.

  • 1 decade ago

    abortion has always been around. like a lot of other things it was hidden in dark places. it was dangerous and illegal but still done.

    abortion is a moral issue and not a political issue. and the politicians that use it are the ones that are trying to hide other real issues. everytime they want a coverup on something they bring it out of the santa bag of tricks.

    when i hear it mentioned i go look for a sneak attack;

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Republicans have been in power more often then Democrats and they have done Absolutely Nothing about it . Has it ever dawned on so called Right to Lifers that Republicans just use this issue as a Political weapon against Democrats . A Weapon they want to keep around for a long time .

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Precedents are not law, and thus different circumstances may nullify a precedence in a different case with different details.

    Also, the ability of the attorney(s) involved to argue their point using existing law and other precedences can come into play here.

    It is all about how good the attorney is.

  • 1 decade ago

    Restoring or establishing rights for the unborn may require a change in technology to get pro-life liberals back into power in The Democratic Party. If nonlethal methods of terminating unwanted pregnancy are developed, then pro-life Democrats such as Democrats for Life may be able to move up in the Party and restore rights for the unborn through judicial activism if that is what it takes, as well as legislation. If women can terminate unwanted pregnancies without killing the unborn, that should reduce support for lethal methods of terminating pregnancy that we are now stuck with, thus allowing pro-life liberals to go further within the Democratic Party.

    I think Tybalt got it right. Republicans dating back to Lincoln are reluctant to use the courts to expand civil rights. As much as he hated slavery, Lincoln enforced the Dredd Scott decision in Maryland and DC up to very near the end of The Civil War. He was able to free any slaves who escaped from Confederate States only because they were determined to be enemy assets, but slave owners in Maryland and DC could have escaped slaves returned to them because those areas did not leave The Union.

    I think of pro-life Republicans respecting the Roe V. Wade decision in the same light. They want the unborn to have rights, but feel they can't use the courts to create or restore those rights.

    Note to Natalie: People go to jail trying to save lives if killing is legal, or they go to jail for killing if it is illegal. There are many people in jail for trying to save the lives of the unborn by nonviolent but illegal means, in addition to anti-abortion bombers and murders who even most prolifers think should be in jail. Neither forcing women to endure unwanted pregnancy or allowing them to have their babies killed will stop people from going to jail. We need a nonlethal way to allow women to terminate unwanted pregnancy.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It's far more common to grant rights than to take rights away.

    Taking away a granted civil right is a more difficult uphill battle.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.