[Arthur McGowan]

The Supreme Court can't reverse a past decision. They can only decide some future case differently. And they are certainly never going to announce, "When an abortion case comes to us, we're going to reverse Roe v. Wade." That would be like a judge saying, "The next embezzlement case that comes before me, I'm going to make sure there's a conviction."

[MHGinTN]

There s another way to void the Roe and Doe cases. By bringing a separate case addressing the issue of protection for an individual human life on life support, a decision could be rendered that would set new precedent. With fetal tissue harvesting and that harvesting occurring without proof of death of the fetus --as is the current practice in 'clinics' such as the body parts market operated by Tiller the serial killer, the potential is ripe for a paradigm shift. When body parts are harvested from adult individual humans, a certificate of death must be rendered. With the fetal tissue market no such certification is issued, establishing on the face of it the disenfranchisement of an entire class of alive indivdual human beings.

[wita]

Not being a professional student of the supreme court, I will plead ignorance on your statement of "the supreme court can't reverse a past decision". If the facts come to light, that a decision was based on improper arguments, or outright falsehood, it stands to reason, that a decision must be able to be reversed else what does the court stand for? Rhetorical question, not designed to bring out humorous comments vis-a-vis the court.