Roe v Wade: A Constitutional Perspective

A leaked draft of a possible majority opinion presented the possibility of a ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case negating – effectively overturning – the oft-debated Roe v. Wade decisions due to Constitutional Considerations has caused quite the political row. Despite the knee-jerk emotional reactions from the Far Left and early claims of victory from those who are anti-abortion, the true argument against the 1973 landmark SCOUTS decision is Constitutional: a violation of the 10th Amendment of the US Bill of Rights. Our panel from the Herb London Center for Policy Research delves into the true contestable issues surrounding the Roe v. Wade outcome.
The seven Supreme Court Justices who voted in favor of the "Jane Roe" legal team justified their decision citing the 14th Amendment's "Due Process" statute while adding not allowing a women to have an abortion would violate that same amendment's declaration the government can not infringe on people's "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." Of the two dissenting Justices, William Rehnquist argued the 14th amendment does not protect abortion (citing legal issues) while Justice Byron White says the decision violated the rights of states to set such laws (A10). Our panel takes a deeper dive:
LCPR President LTC Tony Shaffer
LCPR Senior Fellow Jay Homnick
LCPR Senior Fellow Marine Capt. Bill Heinzalmann

If you enjoy our Thought to Action videos, please comment and subscribe to our channel

Also, visit our Thought to Action Teespring Store: https://my-store-10084335.creator-spring.com/

Follow the London Center on Twitter: @TheLCPR

Thank you for watching; please feel free to comment, share and subscribe.

For exclusive content, sneak previews and access to our full Ask Us Anything Sessions (and future live virtual events) - please join our Patreon community: https://www.patreon.com/thoughttoaction

Thought to Action is presented by the London Center for Policy Research https://www.londoncenter.org​