Overruling What? Roe?/Casey?

[Mae Kuykendall]

It would seem worth contemplating how much non-reproduction-specific
jurisprudence would lose its constitutional roots if Roe and various
predecessors, in their broadest popular/legal meaning as judicial
protection against decisions that "intrude on the personal and private
life of the individual," were overturned.  Reminder:  The cultural
confrontation is not all about abortion.  Mae Kuykendall

>>> "Conkle, Daniel O." <conkle at indiana.edu> 11/9/2004 10:35:27 AM >>>
You're right, of course, but in popular and political discourse "Roe"
means the constitutional protection of abortion rights.  Most
non-lawyers have never heard of Casey.
Dan Conkle 
************************************** 
Daniel O. Conkle 
Professor of Law 
Indiana University School of Law 
Bloomington, Indiana  47405 
(812) 855-4331 
fax (812) 855-0555 
e-mail conkle at indiana.edu 
************************************** 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
RJLipkin at aol.com 
	Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:32 AM
	To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu 
	Subject: Overruling What? Roe?/Casey?
	
	
	
	        In discussing the prospect of de-constitutionalizing
abortion rights, why does the discussion inevitably raise the issue of
overruling Roe?  Why isn't Casey the case that should be overruled
and,
of course, that decision would eo ipso overrule Roe?
	 
	Bobby 
	 
	Robert Justin Lipkin
	Professor of Law
	Widener University School of Law
	Delaware