You came up with a good analogy since Roe v. Wade is stare decisis.
STARE DECISIS
Lat. “to stand by that which is decided.” The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.
“To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.
An appeal court’s panel is “bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions.” United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, “It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . ‘is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.’” (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.) Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law.”
Yes, Roe v Wade is a very good analogy to using the British meaning of "Natural born subject" for "Natural born citizen."
In both cases, it is judicially created nonsense bearing no resemblance to the intent of the constitutional provision cited.
STARE DECISIS
Lat. “to stand by that which is decided.” The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.
Which in the vernacular means "Because *I* say so." Which of course, is not a sound or rational basis for law.