The Economist Eviscerates Roe vs. Wade

The Economist magazine says it favors legal abortion. Yet it excoriates the 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in all states. It writes that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority that year, citing a right to privacy that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. “In Roe the justices invented the law rather than interpreting it, substituting their preferences for those of voters,” writes The Economist. “Big social controversies are better settled democratically than by judicial fiat.”

That’s yet another compelling reason to revoke Roe vs. Wade.

Overturning Roe vs. Wade would be easier than overturning Obergefell vs. Hodges, the recent Supreme Court decision that compels all U.S. states to recognize two-person homosexual civil unions as genuine marriages. Nullifying Roe vs. Wade would mean abortion clinics would have to be shut down in states where it’s outlawed, and women no longer would be able to get legal abortions in those states. That would be a relatively simple undertaking compared with the aftermath of nullifying Obergefell vs. Hodges.

The longer the ramifications of Obergefell vs. Hodges percolate into society, the more institutionalized will become the gay union way of life. The political opposition to upending whole family and societal structures based on homosexual unions, and to revoking rights to extensive government benefits and privileges made possible by Obergefell vs. Hodges, would be overwhelming. A future Supreme Court would be highly reluctant to revoke the ruling. Even if it did, Congress would likely restore the law, given popular support for the now-institutionalized way of life.

With Obergefell vs. Hodges the law of the land, now it’s a matter of time until unions of three-or-more persons will be recognized by states as genuine marriages. In that scenario, millions of men won’t be able to find a mate, because other men will have multiple wives. A bleak future indeed.