By: Robert M. Owens, J.D.

The dissenting opinion offered by the liberal wing of the Supreme Court provides insight into the logic
offered by the left in support of abortion and woke ideology in general. The dissent essentially puts
forward two main arguments, one claiming the case is already decided and should not be reversed and
the other on the basis that the majority is too rigid in interpreting the Constitution. By paying attention
to the arguments in the dissenting opinion, we can better expose the intellectual dishonesty inherent in
their position.
The first issue raised by the dissent deals with the issue of Stare Desisis. This is a legal term that says
once something is decided by the court it should be left that way except for the most important of
reasons. The dissent says that Roe and Casey should be followed just because they exist and have
existed for nearly 50 years. When confronted by a liberal that raises this issue, one could simply ask, “In
the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court ruled that black people were not human beings. You agree that
the Court was right to reverse that case, right?”
The dissenting justices also complain that “All rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-
nineteenth century are insecure.” The dissent continued, “The majority [reversed Roe and Casey] based
on a single question: Did the reproductive right recognized in Roe and Casey exist in 1868, the year
when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified? The majority says (and with this much we agree) that
the answer to this question is no: In 1868, there was no nationwide right to end a pregnancy, and no
thought that the Fourteenth Amendment provided one.”
The above argument underlies a damaging admission. The first principle of interpreting laws is to
discern the original intent of the law when it was passed. Accordingly, the dissent admits that the legal
precepts that served as the foundation for Roe, Casey and all the other Woke Agenda items all violate
the first principles of legal analysis. Was there a right to abortion in 1868? No. Was there a right to a
transgender bathroom in 1868? If not, don’t make claims under the 14 th Amendment.
Ultimately, the dissent tries to cleverly camouflage their desire to have the Constitution be subject to
the whims of modern society. Having failed to do so, the logic of death is now exposed.