re: #274 CSUH2001

If you’re for overturning Roe, it would be on grounds that the Constitution doesn’t specifically grant that right/protection, and that it isn’t within the plain meaning of the Constitution or Bill of Rights - that the stare decisis of the earlier cases are not operative and overturning the outcome of Roe.

That general principle would apply if you’re seeking to overturn Eisenstadt or Griswold.

Generally, the Court wont overturn earlier decisions unless it finds a really good reason to do so (Brown overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, for instance.)

If you’re for keeping the outcome of Roe (and its progeny) plus cases like Griswold, you’d be claiming that overturning the cases would create due process and equal protection problems nationally as applied and de facto, as well as affecting the public health and welfare.

/quick and dirty recap