Are you a lawyer? What you’ve done is commendable.
But unfortunately I am a fly in the ointment.
Justices have said they may review Roe. If that is the case they would not want to bring up Griswold in this case because it may compromise a later review of Roe.
I hope I am wrong and it would be irrelevant to a review of Roe.
“If that is the case they would not want to bring up Griswold in this case because it may compromise a later review of Roe”
They don’t have to; the lawyers will bring it up and the court will then address it.
I am a frustrated Rock Musician who spends my days working as an attorney.
Justices have said they may review Roe. If that is the case they would not want to bring up Griswold in this case because it may compromise a later review of Roe.
If Roe is constitutional then the Health Care legislation (which puts the government between the citizen and his physician) is unconstitutional.
I would prefer that the argument be limited to the "right to be left alone" as enunciated in Griswold and not use Roe as a wedge to overturn this health care monstrosity.
Roe touches on additional issues of protecting those least capable of protecting themselves, i.e., the unborn or the almost born. The issue in Roe is effectively when the rights of the unborn are vested (a subject that the Supreme Court evaded in the decision).