On the recordMay 10, 2022
when I introduced the Women's Health Protection Act in 2013--yes, in 2013, almost 10 years ago--the idea that Roe v. Wade would be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court was virtually unthinkable. We accepted 50 years of established precedent, long-accepted law in this country--as something that was virtually unimaginable. Women relied on it. Our society took it as a core principle of our constitutional law, much as Brown v. Board of Education, Marbury v. Madison, Roe v. Wade, tenets and pillars of constitutional law in this country. And when we asked nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, the three most recent of them--and I personally asked this question--is Roe v. Wade established law, they said to us that they would rely on stare decisis, which for everyday Americans is, basically, we will follow established precedent as articulated year after year by the U.S. Supreme Court. The now well-reported Alito draft of an opinion overturning Roe v. Wade came like a thunderbolt, an earthquake, a seismic blow that constitutional scholars thought was unthinkable. The draft itself is strident and brash. It is disrespectful in a way that Supreme Court opinions never are. It is unprecedented in its tone and approach, saying that Roe v. Wade was egregiously wrong, failing to accurately portray what it held and the reasons for its holding. There is no question in my mind that the Court, in its final opinion, will smooth the edges of that draft.…





