Reversing Roe v. Wade Wouldn’t be the First Time the Supreme Court Gutted Precedents that Protect Individual Rights — Far From it

Source: The Volokh Conspiracy
by Ilya Somin

“One oft-heard criticism of the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade is that it would be the first time the Court reversed a precedent protecting individual rights, as opposed to one that limits them. For example, law professors Sonia Suter and Naomi Cahn write that ‘this decision would mark the first time the Court overturned precedent to eliminate, as opposed to recognize a new, right.’ … In reality, the Supreme Court has gutted rights-protective precedents on multiple occasions — including some of its most prominent rulings. That history doesn’t necessarily justify overruling Roe v. Wade. It may even counsel against it. But it is worth considering, nonetheless. …, The Court’s abolition of nearly all judicial protection for economic liberties under the Fourteenth Amendment ended up negating many more precedents than a reversal of Roe would.” (05/05/22)