The norms Roe destroyed won't revive with its death


If this is really the end for Roe v. Wade (1973), it will be fitting that the decision that shattered so many norms has demolished another one on the way out: An opinion reversing the landmark abortion ruling — confirmed to be authentic, though not the court's final word on the subject — was leaked in a breach of custom and legal ethics.
Roe's champions venerate it as "settled law," but the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion never settled the debate. It has raged ever since, poisoning the judicial confirmation process as the nation's highest court became its foremost abortion policymaking body. Roe has turned presidential elections, Senate races, and Supreme Court vacancies into something approaching a battle to the death — much as the ruling's most zealous defenders often speak of the relationship between mother and child in the womb.
Yet even many supporters of legal abortion have concluded Roe was a shoddy piece of judicial work. It relied on fraudulent historical claims and bad science that 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey unsuccessfully sought to update. The noted legal scholar John Hart Ely memorably said Roe "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Even from a pro-choice perspective, abortion rights might have been more secure if the product of democratic consensus rather than seven justices — all men, by the way — in the 1970s.
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
The leaked draft by Justice Samuel Alito makes these points in sending this contentious issue back to the states. But the damage cannot be so easily undone. People who thought it was perfectly legitimate for the Supreme Court to override all 50 state abortion laws for nearly a half century now think it deligitimizes the court to reach the opposite conclusion. Those norms aren't the most important things that Roe destroyed, at least from the pro-life point of view. But we will continue to reap the whirlwind even after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is handed down.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
W. James Antle III is the politics editor of the Washington Examiner, the former editor of The American Conservative, and author of Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?.
-
Taking aim at Venezuela’s autocrat
Feature The Trump administration is ramping up military pressure on Nicolás Maduro. Is he a threat to the U.S.?
-
Comey indictment: Is the justice system broken?
Feature U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan has indicted former FBI Director James Comey on charges of lying and obstructing Congress
-
Government shuts down amid partisan deadlock
Feature As Democrats and Republicans clash over health care and spending, the shutdown leaves 750,000 federal workers in limbo
-
Supreme Court rules for Fed’s Cook in Trump feud
Speed Read Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook can remain in her role following Trump’s attempts to oust her
-
Supreme Court to consider gutting agency autonomy
Speed Read The court’s three liberals dissented
-
Trump asks Supreme Court to OK Cook ouster
Speed Read In his attempt to seize control of the US central bank, the president seeks permission to oust Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook
-
Supreme Court: Will it allow Trump’s tariffs?
Feature Justices fast-track Trump’s appeal to see if his sweeping tariffs are unconstitutional
-
Graphic videos of Charlie Kirk’s death renew debate over online censorship
Talking Points Social media ‘promises unfiltered access, but without guarantees of truth and without protection from harm’
-
Trump's drug war is now a real shooting war
Talking Points The Venezuela boat strike was 'not a mere law enforcement action'
-
Why are federal judges criticizing SCOTUS?
Today's Big Question Supreme Court issues Trump case rulings 'with little explanation'
-
Can Trump put his tariffs on stronger legal footing?
Today's Big Question Appeals court says 'emergency' tariffs are improper