Here's a segment of the majority decision in Roe vs Wade:
Roe v Wade stipulated a needed future review of emerging science, whenever new information has the potential to further inform the courts on the issue of human viability. That part of the precedent requires fetal development inquiries. The court has failed to follow their full ruling in the regard. Kavanaugh could vote to require a full review by lower courts about fetal viability, and thus negate Roe v Wade as a precedent.
An honest justice would strive to be informed, because his mandate is to provide justice for all, to the highest attainment possible.
In the 1989 Webster case, Justice Scalia verbally scolded Justice O'Connor for refusing to answer the viability review. Had O'Connor done what Scalia deemed, then Roe vs Wade would have been overthrown and all states would revert back to their own statutes regarding abortion.
Opinion of the Editor
We recently moved our blog. Our archives are still partially stored at our old site.
David Van Risseghem is the Director of Sooner Politics.org. The resource is committed to informing & mobilizing conservative Oklahomans for civic reform. This endeavor seeks to utilize the efforts of all cooperative facets of the Conservative movement...