As bad as Dred Scott was, it at least had a shred of constitutional reasoning. Roe has ABSOLUTELY NONE.
Okay. I'll ask you (since the other guy won't answer), what was "bad" about it? Is that you just didn't like the ends, or do you think there was something wrong with the means (Taney's et al. reasoning). It's not for the courts to go changing the law, even if the law is flawed. This is up to the Congress, or the States if it involves Constitutional change.
ML/NJ