Most Americans want Roe v Wade to stay established law.

Charles, no they were dishonest. Established precedent that's been all the way up to the Supreme Court several times over the last 50 years at best can be slowly chipped away at around the edges but it's unprecedented that it could simply be dismissed in one ruling. To do so would mean total abandonment of the main undepining in the US legal system, stare decisis, in Federal Courts and declared that cases will now be decided solely upon a polling of each Justice's personal whims and feelings about any given case.

And ignoring long-standing precedent has never been used as a basis to take an established right away. Overuling Plessy expanded the rights of Americans. It did not take them away like this ruling. Gay marriage and the right to access birth control are going to be the next to go.

So PJ argues that the Supreme Courts "privacy" argument on abortion make sense.  Please explain.

established precedent that's been all the way up to the Supreme Court several times over the last 50 years at best can be slowly chipped away at around the edges but it's unprecedented that it could simply be dismissed in one ruling.

Not correct.  The Plessy case is one example of the SC overturning a case & not chipping away.

Interesting article from Bill Maher

https://www.foxnews.com/media/bill-maher-roe-v-wade-abortion-scotus

Abortion is not in the Constituion. Your right to privacy is. Thats the 14th ammendment and thats what the Roe-Wade decision was based upon.

This is what Ginsburg said

 https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit?msclkid=a004ed5fce3a11ec8f853590be3cc849

For those to lazy

My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights

Overruling Plessy gave people more rights not less. It gave black Americans the same rights white Americans had. Overruling Roe takes away the rights of women.  In some cases reducing them to mere birthing vessels for their rapist's baby.

No it doesn't, abortion is still legal.  It returns the decision making authority to the Congress & the state legislatures

Waiting for your state legislature to give you rights that you once had means you no longer have them. Furthermore a lot of states aren't giving you this right back they are making it a felony offense if you chose to leave that state and go to another that has that right. This is the first time the Supreme Court has taken an existing right away.

Mark - you don't get it.  If Roe is overturned, it doesn't make abortion illegal, it is still legal, unless Congress or a state legislature makes it illegal

I already did..and so did the non-activist Supreme COurt judeges that weren't bought and paid for by an acitvist group.

See my comments on page 2 of this thread.    Boilerman thinkls he and government beurocrats are in a better position  to weigh the multitude of vaiables surronding a pregnancy than the individual at the center of it.

Boilerman, let me know when you put your name in to adopt the the crack baby with mental, physical, and drug defects that gets born in Texas.because the prostitute that gave birth to him wasnt allowed to terminate the pregnancy.

I do get it. It will only be illegal in 26 states or so. Women in those states will be second class citizens mere birthing vessels.