Could medical advances undermine Roe v. Wade?
In the last ten years, the Supreme Court re-evaluated how protections in the Bill of Rights square with the Internet. Recent cases dissected protections against searches and seizures and free speech and press, among other matters. The winner of the 2016 electoral college may make appointments with all due care, but that next President cannot know how any single appointee will decide cases brought decades from now, after unforeseen advances.
Medicine is moving forward. And with it, constitutional law.
This story is one scenario of the future about a body of elite lawyers whose choices are seen as impregnable to wishes of the U.S. House, Senate, and even the leader of the free world.
But it is more than that. The case concerns a father and a mother-to-be, on behalf of what may be a viable fetus.
In the last ten years, the Supreme Court re-evaluated how protections in the Bill of Rights square with the Internet. Recent cases dissected protections against searches and seizures and free speech and press, among other matters. The winner of the 2016 electoral college may make appointments with all due care, but that next President cannot know how any single appointee will decide cases brought decades from now, after unforeseen advances.
Medicine is moving forward. And with it, constitutional law.
This story is one scenario of the future about a body of elite lawyers whose choices are seen as impregnable to wishes of the U.S. House, Senate, and even the leader of the free world.
But it is more than that. The case concerns a father and a mother-to-be, on behalf of what may be a viable fetus.
