Bulldust meant for the US market. What American courts, and Americans in general do is no concern of ours.

Here's the thing, the court removes one right, to terminate a pregnancy while enhancing another the right to bear arms.

If all life is sacrosanct!? Why is a yet unborn life, more important than those taken in mass shooting by armed nutjobs!?

We will see unwanted unaffordable children living out lives of lifelong deprivation and abuse and children forced to give birth to children.

Rest assured the crime rate via gun crime will surely rise as will death by gunshot as those with the guns use them as protection!

Or will the fact that the intending criminal will back off the intended crime due to the fact, his/her target may shoot back? For mine the latter the most likely outcome!
Alan B.

Very amusing to watch the satanic brigade sh!tting their pants in a frenzy of hatred and double-talk as usual.

The Court did not remove a right because such a right does not exist in the US Constitution, all the Court did was remove an erroneous interpretation.
As regards guns all that the Court did was uphold the law.

Reason not emotion is what is needed in regard to the law.

Perhaps the author can explain why the USA has such a low murder rate by world standards?

I think there are three distinct issues here:

1. Should women have a right to access safe, legal abortions?
2. Was the Supreme Court correct in its initial decision in Roe v Wade that the right to abortion is implicit in the constitution?
3. If the initial decision was not correct, should the current Supreme Court have overturned it?

I think the answer to question 1 is definitely yes, but I know many legal experts, including supporters of the right to choose, who admit the answer to question 2 is probably no. If so, then most of Alon’s argument is largely irrelevant – the decision to overturn Roe v Wade is not a matter of what the people of the US actually want, or what the law should say, or even the horrible consequences this decision will have, but what was the correct thing to do in law.

That is not to say necessarily that the court should have overturned Roe v Wade even if it believed the initial judgement was wrong. In an interesting article in The Australian a few days ago, Henry Ergas ran the argument that even though conservatives might believe Roe v Wade is wrong and may oppose abortion rights, they should “lament” the reversal because it breaches stare decisis – the principle that courts stand by past decisions even if they believe them to be wrong because "In most matters, it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right," as Justice Louis Brandeis famously wrote 1932.

In three recent rulings – I’d add The Clean Power Plan decision to the two listed by Alon – the court has shown itself willing to disregard precedent and consequences in its quest to reverse the perceived errors of its predecessors in pursuit of a deeply ideological agenda. The result will be a loss of credibility of the court, loss of certainty for citizens about their legal rights, and possible see-sawing of decisions as new members join the court and feel free to reverse their predecessors’ decisions.

A bad decision.