On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. It’s tempting to speculate about the motives of the justices who pushed that ruling through. But I focus here upon what I believe to be a glaring flaw in their logic.
As reported by NPR:
Writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the 1973 Roe ruling and repeated subsequent high court decisions reaffirming Roe “must be overruled” because they were “egregiously wrong,” the arguments “exceptionally weak” and so “damaging” that they amounted to “an abuse of judicial authority.”
I think Justice Alito’s explanation is fundamentally flawed because it ignores the core function of the Constitution, which is to guard against tyranny.
I think the American Revolution was a necessary response to the tyranny of one group over another. And the Constitution is a remarkably lucid attempt to establish a foundation upon which a society can evolve that’s primary virtue is that it guards against one group tyrannizing another.
Apart from all other considerations, I think the litmus test for whether something is constitutional is whether it opens the door for one group to tyrannize another, which overturning Roe v. Wade absolutely does. To my way of thinking, overturning Roe v. Wade was an unconstitutional act that makes it possible for self-indulgent sadists to visit unbridle aggression upon women.