Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

[historia]

More precisely: Should the current Supreme Court precedent on abortion -- first established by Roe v. Wade, but later modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- be overturned?

My question here is not so much whether abortion should be legal or not, since overturning Roe would not, in itself, make abortion illegal, with several states having laws that explicitly allow for abortions.

[The Barbarian]

I think this has been handled badly by anti-abortion people. Until now, support for abortion has been declining for decades, as has the abortion rate. But now, we have this leaked paper, showing that a number of justices lied in their confirmation hearings about their positions on Roe v. Wade. And it appeared that the court was ready to overturn the decision.

Which frightened people, energized pro-abortion groups and damaged the progress pro-life forces have made up to now. One thing is for sure; a court decision that is so heavily rejected by the American people will backfire, and in the long run produce more abortions, not fewer.

Last time something like this happened was the Volstead Act. How did that turn out? The intentions may be good, but the effects may be something quite different. If we are truly pro-life, the goal should be to save lives. Anything that reverses the trend toward fewer abortions is a mistake.

[myth-one.com]

More precisely: Should the current Supreme Court precedent on abortion -- first established by Roe v. Wade, but later modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- be overturned?

My question here is not so much whether abortion should be legal or not, since overturning Roe would not, in itself, make abortion illegal, with several states having laws that explicitly allow for abortions.

Is there a dangerous shortage of humans on the earth?

If not, I vote not to overturn Roe v. Wade.

But I'm not suggesting that it be considered anyone's first choice for birth control or population control.

I'm pro-life and not against abortions.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #121]
All excellent points. I shared the same concern, the unintended social consequences of the 18th Amendment at viewtopic.php?f=16&t=39444

Violence has begun. A guy in Iowa drove his truck into a group of protestors. It's important to note there were no serious injuries. https://www.businessinsider.com/watch-a ... owa-2022-6

Anyway...
The Mississippi anti abortion law is actually fairly reasonable in prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks gestation. Texas law moves he mark to "whenever a fetal heart beat is detectable," about 5 and a half to 6 weeks. I haven't reviewed each State's abortion laws, but the real problem will be when they declare a zygote to have "personhood." That would be even before the fertilized egg attaches to the wall of the uterus, about 6 days after the pesky little sperm cell invaded the egg.

Back to the decision. Alito didn't take long to show his hypocrisy about overturning precedent. Roe was decided on a privacy interest, but some suggest it could be decided under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Get Alitio's reasoning as to why he won't consider equal protection:

Neither Roe nor Casey saw fit to invoke this theory [equal protection], and it is squarely foreclosed by our precedents, which establish that a State’s regulation of abortion is not a sex-based classification....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 2_6j37.pdf