The majority opinion written by Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade declared that abortion was a fundamental right, but its trimester framework sought to balance this medical interest with the state’s interest in protecting unborn life. Why was the Roe opinion framed the way it was? Six law professors discuss the decision in Roe v. Wade and its impact on the American legal system.

Watch Part One:
Watch Part Two:

* * * * *

As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.


Prof. Helen M. Alvare, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

Prof. David E. Bernstein, Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University

Prof. Robert P. George, Princeton University

Prof. Linda Greenhouse, Yale Law School

Prof. Kimberly Mutcherson, Rutgers Law School

Prof. Teresa Stanton Collett, University of St. Thomas School of Law

* * * * *


Related Links & Differing Views:

Constitution Daily: “On this day, the Roe v. Wade Decision”

C-SPAN: “Landmark Cases: Roe v. Wade

Yale Law Journal: “The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade

Harvard Law Review: “Roe v. Wade: Past, Present, and Future:

Arcane Knowledge: “Legal Issues of Roe v. Wade

Michigan Law Review: “Rewriting Roe v. Wade

Justia’s Verdict: “Marking the Fortieth Anniversary of Roe v Wade
Part I:
Part II:

Mises Institute: “Before Roe v. Wade, Abortion Had Always Been a State and Local Matter”