Quote of the Year

Majority Decision, Gonzales V. Carhart:

We assume the following principles for the purposes of this opinion. Before viability, a State "may not prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate her pregnancy." 505 U.S., at 879 (plurality opinion). It also may not impose upon this right an undue burden, which exists if a regulation's "purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." ld., at 878. On the other hand, regulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State, or the parent or guardian of a minor, may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted, if they are not a substantial obstacle to the woman's right to choose." ld., at 877. Casey, in short struck a balance. The balance was central to its holding. We now apply its standard to the cases at bar."

Most important note of all: the "ultraconservative" Alito and Roberts agreed with the above - an affirmation that women have a right to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability, that the state can not place "substantial obstacles" in the pate of a woman seeking a pre-viability abortion, and can only act to limit abortions if they are not "a substantial obstacle to the woman's exercise of the right to choose."

So, despite all the ballyhoo of the supposed "ultraconservatives" on the court and the "threat" to Rode v. Wade and to Casey, we end up with the result that if Roe v. Wade was to be challenged before this court , it would be a 7-2 decision to uphold Roe v. Wade. Only JJustices Scalia and Thomas were willing to support a move to overturn Roe v. Wade.