The Legal Vulnerability of Roe vs Wade

  There is now a renewed interest in the fate of one of the US supreme Court's most controversial decisions. Roe vs Wade was decided on the basis of 1973 scientific research. That was nearly 50 years ago, and the majority decision  was written by Justice Blackmun. Blackmun cited several classic theological and religious texts as well as what medical certainty of that day could prove.
  Since they had no certainty of developing human life in the first 13 weeks, they decided it's acceptable to kill.  I find that odd, given that when I go hunting and I decide to shoot into a thicket because I can observe some movement, I am fully answerable for any resulting harm. If that movement in the thicket was another hunter, I'll likely go to prison.  The law says I must know what nature of life I am destroying and I must have full informed authority to destroy that identified life.
​  So Blackmun and his colleagues agree that their decision is subject to future medical knowledge.

Justice Blackmun, author of the Roe vs Wade majority opinion.

---

Here's a segment of the majority decision in Roe vs Wade:

   With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth.
  It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements;

• as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion;
• as to the licensure of that person;
• as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status;
• as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

​  This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

  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.