Letter: De-bunking myths of Dobbs case

Contrary to popular opinion, the Supreme Court's recent Dobbs decision did not end abortion and it did not act irresponsibly, without precedent, and this decision does not justify "stacking" the court as many reactionists are proposing.

The court's decision was not justified on political, religious or moral grounds but the abortion question is a huge political, religious and moral one, and the Constitution is very clear that where no specific provision is made for, or against such an issue, the court has no business taking a side but rather the decision should be resolved at the state level, by the people, through their state elected legislators.

The court actually reduced its "power" by recognizing that it did not have the constitutional authority to render a decision for, or against, abortion. This court decision, like several recent others, show a pattern of trying keep the court and other elected officials in "their own lanes" limiting decisions to ones they are actually authorized to make.

The Supreme Court has overruled 232 prior decisions and each current member of the court and each of the 48 justices that served over the last 100 years voted to overrule a prior decision and a substantial number of these were very significant and longstanding precedents.

There are five factors that the court must consider and find serious error with to overrule a prior court decision. In reversing the Roe case, the court found that the "nature" of the Roe decision was "egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided."

The Dobbs decision simply returned the abortion question back to where our constitution intended, to the people and their state elected representatives.

Vincent J. Heaton, Jr.

Wheaton