Roe v. Wade: a decision endangered or will precedent stand?

Erin Moffet / Columnist

With two open seats on the Supreme Court in such a short period of time, the main question on everyone's mind is the Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade.

George W. Bush has publicly acknowledged his pro-life viewpoint on this case. The President himself would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned and have the women's right to choose taken away.

Now after getting to nominate two Supreme Court Justices and having his first one actually enter as Chief Justice of the United States, his desires could become reality.

If Sandra Day O'Connor's surprising resignation had been known prior to the 2004 presidential elections, there's a good chance John Kerry would be President of the United States right now.

It was a given that Chief Justice Rehnquist would not still be on the bench by the time of the next presidential election. But it was also a given that conservative Rehnquist would be replaced by a conservative Bush appointment and the balance of the Court would not be disrupted.

On the Rehnquist court, Sandra Day O'Connor usually was the swing vote on close decisions. No one could ever predict which way she would vote on an issue.

Rather then being infuriated with George W. Bush for doing what was expected by nominating two conservative appointees, people should be let down by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's untimely resignation.

Her action has definitely let women down everywhere.

In 1973, at the time of the Roe v. Wade decision, the Burger Court was very liberal. The votes for Roe v. Wade were 7-2 but there was no clear majority in these votes.

Four justices voted with the majority opinion, three had concurring opinions, and two dissented. No five justices viewed the case in the same way and the majority opinion was based on citizen's inherent right to privacy.

The present day Supreme Court is now divided with four on each side of the spectrum and O'Connor in the middle.

Whoever replaces Sandra Day O'Connor has the power in their vote to overrule the Roe v. Wade decision.

But then comes in the question of precedent in the Court. Precedent is a judicial decision that may be used in subsequent and similar cases.

The Court usually follows the ideal of precedent but there have been instances when they invalidate a decision.

An example of when the Supreme Court has ruled with disregard to precedent was in Brown v. Board of Education which reversed the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson.

To actually overrule Roe v. Wade, the Court would also have to invalidate any subsequent cases that were decided by giving citizens the right to privacy since this was the basis of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Is the Court's agenda with a majority of conservatives likely and the conservatives in power in Congress in the White House strong enough to take away the right to privacy just to try to ban abortion?

With seven males currently on the Supreme Court, a male president, and a majority of congressmen males, what right do they have to make the decision on abortion?

Men should not be allowed to take away the women's right to choose.

Contact Erin Moffet at opinions@elon.edu or 278-7247