Often, laws can be vague or ambiguous, and judges need to support their decisions with resplendent reasoning, which finds its roots in the pursuit of justice. What is crucial, however, is that judges adhere to the reasonable boundaries set by the concrete legal framework when unleashing their legal creativity. It is far from unusual to be at a loss as to where these boundaries end. From a constitutional law viewpoint, one can argue whether judges have crossed reasonable boundaries both in the Dobbs v Jackson and the Roe v Wade cases.
Reproductive rights and abortions have been a salient issue in United States politics for decades and are under constant threat. On Friday, 24 June 2022, a nightmare for many women across America became a reality: The United States Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade in a 6-to-3 ruling, thereby eliminating the constitutional right to abortion in the United States after nearly 50 years.
Roe v Wade declared state interference with a woman’s right to abortion to be unconstitutional by virtue of the 14th Amendment, seemingly establishing an unfettered right to abortion in the USA. However, while liberals welcomed the change, conservative action was and continues to be sought to reverse the Supreme Court’s judgment. Since the decision, abortion rights have been narrowed by way of case law and law reform. But, to what extent has there been a diminishing of Roe’s doctrine?