Replies

The major ruling of Roe actually has been reversed - although nobody would be willing to admit it. The central ruling was that the 14th Amendment’s use of the word “person” means “legal person” and not “biological person”.

For almost 100 years the courts had made rulings as if the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to Blacks, but if the word “person” means “legal person”, then it never applied to Blacks because Blacks had already been declared by SCOTUS to be LEGAL non-persons, in Dred Scott.

And then in 1973 along came Roe, which in effect overruled those other rulings by claiming that the 14th Amendment DIDN’T apply to “legal non-persons” such as Blacks and (as they ruled in Roe) fetuses.

Since 1973 there have been SCOTUS rulings based on the understanding that the 14th Amendment DOES apply to Blacks though. Those rulings refused to acknowledge and accept Roe’s new interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

So what we’ve got is the 1973 Roe decision claiming the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to “legal non-persons”, surrounded by 100 years before it and 41 years after it where the SCOTUS-ruled “legal non-persons” (Blacks) are presumed to have the 14th Amendment apply to them.

The way to challenge Roe v Wade, IMHO, is to claim that some Black person has no citizenship because Roe decided that the 14th Amendment’s use of the word “person” means “legal person” and the Dred Scott decision that Blacks are legal non-persons has never been overturned.

Nobody would be willing to do that because the media would present the filer as a racist, when in reality the filer would simply be taking the Roe decision’s claims seriously so that the court is forced to admit that Roe is dead wrong - which all the judges/justices already know, as evidenced by SCOTUS’ refusal to consider that totally new interpretation of the 14th Amendment when considering “civil rights” cases.

The major ruling of Roe actually has been reversed - although nobody would be willing to admit it. The central ruling was that the 14th Amendment’s use of the word “person” means “legal person” and not “biological person”.

There's also the major premise, the central plank: that there is an expectation of privacy between patient and doctor that the government cannot intrude upon…
Yet ObamaCare requires government involvement in that relationship, imposing itself into the heart of that matter.

I would so love to see a case that forced the USSC to choose: abortion xor socialized medicine.
(I would love to see the terror and running-around...)

The major ruling of Roe actually has been reversed - although nobody would be willing to admit it. The central ruling was that the 14th Amendment’s use of the word “person” means “legal person” and not “biological person”.

Wrong, for at least two reasons: (1) Yesterday's Hobby Lobby decision did not construe the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment; it was construing a federal statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which contained its own definition of the word "person," a definition which included corporations. (2) Roe did not define "person" as used in the 14th Amendment to mean "legal person"; it defined it to mean "born person."

For almost 100 years the courts had made rulings as if the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to Blacks, but if the word “person” means “legal person”, then it never applied to Blacks because Blacks had already been declared by SCOTUS to be LEGAL non-persons, in Dred Scott.

You're again wrong for two reasons: (1) Dred Scott did not say that blacks were not "persons"; it said they were not "citizens of the United States." (2) The 14th Amendment overruled Dred Scott by granting citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States."