Picking up on Ethan’s mention, the other day, of the upcoming Constitutional Commentary symposium on Jack Balkin’s recent paper on abortion and originalism, maybe it is worth mentioning — today being the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade — Balkin’s book, “What Roe Should Have Said.” And, it might also be worth noting Professor Fallon’s recent lecture, “If Roe Were Overturned: Abortion and the Constitution in a post-Roe World.”
As we all know, John Hart Ely observed that the decision “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” On the other hand, Senator Clinton hailed the decision, two years ago, as “a landmark decision that struck a blow for freedom and equality for women.” Everyone now endorses Brown, and even Chief Justice Rehnquist reconciled himself to Miranda, but both sides are still marching in the streets over Roe. What does this mean?
UPDATE: Balkin has a long, “Roe anniversary” post up at Balkinization.
Posted by Rick Garnett on January 22, 2007 at 10:12 AM