Was Roe v. Wade an invalid ruling?

Alfred, I'm sure you're a smart guy but Justice Blackmun (wrote the majority opinion on RvW) is a constitutional legend. Furthermore, the opinion was based on the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments (not just 14).

Here, read a summary I clipped

Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant; that she wished to terminate her pregnancy by an abortion "performed by a competent, licensed physician, under safe, clinical conditions"; that she was unable to get a "legal" abortion in Texas because her life did not appear to be threatened by the continuation of her pregnancy; and that she could not afford to travel to another jurisdiction in order to secure a legal abortion under safe conditions. She claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. By an amendment to her complaint, Roe purported to sue "on behalf of herself and all other women" similarly situated.

Well, it can't be invalid because its a Supreme Court ruling. Sort of a Catch-22.

The Court has made what legal historians call bad decisions over the years. I'm not saying Roe v. Wade is one, but they are all valid by law.

opposite to those stupid comments, the priority has and remains debated heavily by using criminal experts inclusive of a few justices now on the perfect courtroom. individually, as a criminal expert I agree w/ you. that's basically too loads of a stretch. the fact is that our courtroom device has and could continuously be swayed by using politics and the social regulations of the day. because of this the perfect courtroom's situations are frequently unsupported, contradictory, or bounce-frog from one case to the subsequent till the courtroom gets the end result they like. the easy answer - it somewhat is what the final public says at any given time. attorneys or maybe justices will then argue it somewhat is incorrect, then new judges get appointed, politics & social coverage differences, and the regulation differences. No logic. It basically is what that's. of direction, it particularly is the reason I stay clear of constitutional regulation like the plague.

No. The highest court in the land made the ruling How exactly can it be 'invalid'? The Court may revisit it and decide differently, but whatever it decides is the law going forward.

Abortion singles out one group(the unborn) and denies them their rights. Their right to life. Once that right has been denied you can no longer enjoy any other rights afforded other people. There for it violates the 14th amendment.

Yes, it was a bogus politically motivated ruling, just like the Obamacare ruling.

Most modern legal experts say it was just concocted out of whole cloth. There was not a single leg to stand on in support of that ruling.

In the era of ObamaCare where centralized medical information is sought, the "right to privacy" is a joke. hehehe

NO Men should have no vote on this issue.