[ZNPaaneah]

The dissenting opinion by the two justices that voted against Roe v Wade

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

To my opinion it is ridiculous to argue that the framers of the constitution were including the right to an abortion to the "right to privacy". Second, the freedom of religion trumps this anyway. I agree with the dissenting opinion. This is something that should be left to the States to decide. That way if you disagree with the decision you can move. I don't live in Nevada and I don't live in Utah.

Why doesn't the "right to privacy" extend to prostitution, a "don't ask don't tell" kind of ruling. Or why doesn't it extend to polygamy.

Laws should be legislated, not imposed by 7 justices.