[berdie]

I have a sincere question.

I have read a couple of times today that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to overturn RvW.

Why would that be?

Could another Supreme Court decision, overturning RvW, not have the same affect?

And if a constitutional amendment is required to overthrow “the law of the land”...we maybe sc***ed with Obamacare.

[hinckley buzzard]

Roe could be over-ruled by a SCOTUS decision on any number of grounds. Perhaps the cleanest would be the court approving definition of the unborn child as a "person," thus establishing 14th Amendment protections for the unborn against being deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law.

[Ken H]

And if a constitutional amendment is required to overthrow "the law of the land"...we maybe sc***ed with Obamacare.

Possibly. I'm not at all sure SCOTUS will strike down Obamacare.

[Baynative]

Maybe I'm off base but, I think it would take an anti abortion issue to arise that could go all the way to the Supremes and force a decision against abortion. I don't see how that is possible, because no one is being forced to have abortions.

So, the only way a change can happen is by constitutional amendment. I don't think that will ever happen, either.

There are some interesting points in this editorial.