The Roe v Wade Act of 1973 has not passed Congress, nor been signed by any President. The Roe v Wade Amendment to the Constitution is still pending two-thirds supermajorities in both the House and the Senate, plus ratification by three-fourths of the states.
In the January 2003, edition of First Things, Robert H. Bork made the following comments about Roe v. Wade:
"Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that."
Like the Nazis, we have collectively decided to exterminate a particular class of people because SCOTUS SEZ, "and that is that." Or is it? SCOTUS, unlike Hitler, has no power to enforce its OPINIONS. That is up to the EXECUTIVE, who isn't bound by the U.S. Constitution to enforce their opinions, especially when the President is faced with a blatanly Unconstitutional one, after publically stating, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Federal judicial precedent/case law is "nothing more and nothing less" than OPINIONATED precedent/case law:PERIOD! Propagandists may blow you ear drums out, asserting that ONLY LORD SCOTUS can interpret the Constituion. If so, the oath should be changed to".... preserve, protect and defend LORD SCOTUS," while raising his hand 'Sieg Heil' style.
Consider the following two excerpts:
"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).
Robert P. George, Lincoln on Judicial Supremacy:
That Lincoln was devoted to the Declaration of Independence and viewed its statement of principles as integral to the American scheme of constitutional government is, if anything, an understatement. However, the Declaration was far from the only writing of Jefferson's of which Lincoln was mindful. In Jefferson's letter of September 28, 1820 to William C. Jarvis, from which I quoted earlier his line about judicial "despotism," he explained his opposition to judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation as follows:
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in Congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them; if the President fails to provide the place of a judge, to appoint other civil and military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him.
In office, Lincoln gave effect to his position against judicial supremacy by consistently refusing to treat the Dred Scott decision as creating a rule of law binding on the executive branch. http://www.aclj.org/features/commentaries/lincoln.asp
If slavery is evil, abortion is the much greater evil!
In Federalist #51, James Madison stated, "But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates." Federalist No 78 ...It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1 PUBLIUS. 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186.
Bush's 'conservative' judges are far more likely to rule according to FEDERAL CASE LAW, and continue to overrule the U.S. Constitution, Biblical natural law, and even conscience. The Supreme Court has seven justices appointed by Republican presidents.
http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/0/d25f87b9e039e0278525682a006fdec2?opendocumentprecedent
-- a court decision in an earlier case with facts and legal issues similar to those in a case currently before a court. Courts are required to follow some precedents. For example, a U.S. court of appeals must follow decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court; a district court must follow decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and of the court of appeals of its own circuit. Courts are also influenced by decisions they are not required to follow, such as the decisions of other circuits. Courts also follow their own precedents unless they set forth reasons for changing the case law.
If you don't want abortion, DEMAND: 1)Executative non-conpliance; 2) State(s) non-compliance; 3) Jurisdiction removal; 4) IMPEACHMENT followed by APPOINTMENT with people capable of ignoring bogus case law; 5) Congressional defunding of federal courts taking abortion cases &/or defunding EXECUTIVE enforcement of SCOTUS SEZ.
If you want ABORTION ON DEMAND, then flatly say so, and proceed to exterminate till your evil heart is satiated. SCOTUS SEZ is no different an excuse than that offered at the Nuremberg Trials.
If you have any interest in the history of the federal courts BOGUS jurisdictional expansion- see http://www.law.ua.edu/lawreview/grayone.htm which is well within the ability of the average layman to understand. If you haven't the time; KNOW ONE THING - SCOTUS application of the Bill of Rights against the states is more BOGUS than Dred Scott & Roe combined!