Roe ruling serves as a basis for future cases
Stare decisis is a legal principle that outlines the action of looking back on past precedent to make a ruling. Although overturning precedent is perfectly legal, it is rare. Legal precedent is a principle or rule that has been established in a previous legal case. Overturning a Supreme Court ruling is only possible if the prior decision has been deemed unworkable or if there have been significant social changes.
Despite its loose definition, Stare decisis is a fundamental aspect of the United States court system. Stare decisis protects short-term changes in popular opinion from fundamentally altering the long-term nature of society.
The first strike against the theory that Roe V. Wade is currently unworkable can be viewed through the lens of the healthcare system. The current healthcare system struggles to cater to many issues such as an aging population, pandemics, and increasing healthcare costs. In the grand scheme of things, Roe V. Wade is simply one of the many challenges to our healthcare system. Objectively, it would be difficult to argue that the procedure has gotten more complex or that demand has grown so significantly that the medical system can no longer support it.
The challenges often cited when offering abortions in certain states are typically self-inflicted. Lawmakers in some states have created indefensible regulations, making what used to be a straightforward procedure nearly impossible to get within the legal framework. The parameters the lawmakers have attached to legally obtaining an abortion are so impractical that they have effectively banned the procedure.
Substantial social changes are hard to quantify. While one part of the country may be dealing with a change in opinion, these issues were decided at a federal level and require a national, clear shift in ideas to be overturned. National polling sources such as Pew Research Center have said that, despite minor fluctuations, opinions regarding abortion have remained relatively stable for the past three decades. In fact, since 1995, support for abortion has increased slightly. Regardless, there is little substantive evidence, at a federal level, that society’s views on access to abortion have changed.
Despite the lack of justification for not following stare decisis, the question of why we are potentially about to see Roe V. Wade overturned is attributable to a broader issue in our society. We have surrounded ourselves with like-minded individuals and no longer are willing to understand other viewpoints, let alone reach a consensus. Our refusal to accept different opinions has created an environment where we only listen to people with similar opinions, reinforcing our own ideas instead of listening to the other side and considering those ideas. While blame is often pointed at our political system, social media, and other forces, the root cause is irrelevant and is only more volatile because it is viewed as a moral issue on both sides.
The fact is that Roe V. Wade does not meet the overturning standard of stare decisis, regardless of its morality, but our current political climate does little to educate people on this point.