“Rowe was wrongly decided.”

“Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, just days before the Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments on his state’s law banning all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, said Sunday he believes the Roe v. Wade case was “wrongly decided” and that there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits individual states from limiting access to abortions. 

“I think this law can be enacted within a changing confinement of Roe V. Wade, but I also believe Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided,” Reeves, a Republican, said on NBC News’s “Meet the Press,” adding that in a similar reading of the Constitution when Roe was decided in 1973, there was “no fundamental right” there to an abortion. 

Reeves further said he believes the 1992 case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, where the Supreme Court affirmed the Roe decision that states are prohibited from banning most abortions, was “wrongly decided.”

“If you look at the Casey ruling, what you find in my opinion is a ruling that was not based upon fundamentals of the Constitution, but a ruling that was determined based upon what the perceived political perception was at that time,” said Reeves. “I don’t think the judicial branch of government should ever allow politics to play into their decision-making, and I think they did in Casey.”

Abortion laws around the country are not uniform, and in some more liberal states are “much more similar to the abortion laws in China and North Korea than they are to Europe or many other countries around the world,” Reeves added.

The governor also rejected a question from show anchor Chuck Todd as to whether his statements against COVID-19 vaccine mandates, which he opposes because Mississippi believes in “freedom and individual liberty, conflict with his stance on abortion. 

“The far left loves to scream my body, my choice,” he said. “What I would submit to you, choice, is they absolutely ignore the fact that in getting an abortion there is an actual killing of an innocent unborn child that is in that womb … the difference between vaccine mandates and abortions is vaccines allow you to protect yourself. Abortions go in and kill other American babies.” Newsmax

Comment: I am completely in agreement with the governor. There is no universal truth represented in Rowe and this should be a matter reserved to state jurisdiction. Murder is murder and if the people of New York state ,California and the like wish to support infanticide let them bear the burden of guilt that this carries. pl


This entry was posted in government. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to “Rowe was wrongly decided.”

  1. plantman says:

    However one feels about abortion, every reasonable person should be able to agree that Roe was “wrongly decided”. Does the Forth amendment even address abortion, or was the meaning of “privacy” stretched beyond recognition? Here’s the 4th amendment:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

    Where’s the section on abortion?

    There isn’t one.

    Liberals don’t care about justice. The law is just a vehicle for enforcing their own ideology. Roe proves it.

  2. Deap says:

    Roe v Wade is a good example what an activist court looks like, which is interested in a social engineering goal first, and only secondarily tries to find constitutional principles up on which to hang their social engineering goal.

    To wit: how to legally justify infanticide and eliminate the duty of 18 years of child support for every born child. Hence, the creation out of whole cloth the”right to privacy” allowing women to choose infanticide and for men to escape child support duties.

    This is in contrast to a “strict constructionist” court which operates only within the express confines of the four corners of the US Constitution as written.

    Since the US Constitution, includes many ambiguities of its express terms the SCOTUS make-up will be required to rule on such ambiguities: – what is “a well regulated militia,” is just one of them. But what was not ambiguous is there is no express right to privacy.

    That is an activist court construct only. There is no Right to Privacy expressly stated in the US Constitution, but SCOTUS created this right out of whole cloth because they had already decided the outcome they wanted and needed to get to it.

    Swinging back and for the between these two parameter – strict and flexible interpretations of the Constitution allows for both growing pains, as well leading to unacceptable excesses. No hard and fast outcomes preferred, but glad the will of the people through the election process keeps fine-tuning SCOTUS outcomes

    I hope 2022 re-instates conservative majorities in both House and Senate so not much more liberal damage can be done and we bring back some semblance of non-partisan neutrality to our justice system.

    • AK says:


      …the creation out of whole cloth the “right to privacy” allowing women to choose infanticide and for men to escape child support duties.

      I disagree with half of that statement. One can easily make the argument that separate and discriminatory regimes operate on the basis of sex in this area of the law.

      It is FAR easier for women to commit infanticide than for men to escape child support duties. Deadbeat motherhood in the form of abortion is perfectly legal and celebrated, while deadbeat fatherhood in the form of physical and financial absence will eventually land you in family court and extract much of your paycheck, while also carrying significant social stigma (in most circles). My aunt works in family law, and she has always attested that that world visits terrible retribution on deadbeat fathers once they are in its grasp, and even on good fathers whose marriages have disintegrated for whatever reason. But very rarely are women held to the same account under congruent circumstances.

      A few months into our courtship, my wife got pregnant. Thank God she is the most honorable soul I have ever met, because I would never have forgiven her if she had robbed me of my son out of fear and selfishness. Contrary to pro-abortion talking points, it is not solely a woman’s burden or choice. There is another person involved in creating that life. I was that other person, and I wanted that life in the world to care for and to raise, alone if need be. If I had decided I wanted nothing to do with him at that point, the law would have decided otherwise for me. If she had decided she wanted nothing to do with him, an afternoon visit to the clinic would have put the whole issue to rest for all time. To say nothing of the actual act in question, holding me legally responsible for the child on the one hand, yet on the other hand potentially depriving me of the choice to assume that responsibility voluntarily out of love and duty is an unmitigated societal immorality in itself.

  3. MapleLeaf says:

    More likely wrongly reasoned, than wrongly decided.

    “Secure in their persons” can conceivably be expanded to include such a “right”, and as the enumeration of rights, don’t preclude the existence of others, it might be sustained.

    I’d be more curious as to how the pregnancy came about in the first place, and secondly, why the mother didn’t want to proceed with it (in situations where it is non-threatening to the life of the mother). Address those two issues and the amount of abortions will decline.

    That said, I tend to demand a kind of coherent account of the value of life by individuals, so if they are against abortion because they are “pro-life” but are happy to live without accessible healthcare, nor a sane foreign policy, I can’t see that belief as being indicative of any foundational system I’d agree with.

    Just a “rules based order” for people’s bodies… open to abuse by either left or right.

  4. Persona Non Grata says:

    There may be a valid historical argument against the ruling also. When the 14th Amendment was adopted, without which there could be no general federal interference in specifically State matters, abortion was a violation of the Common Law, applicable to all states, unless there was positive authorizing legislation to the contrary (which there wasn’t). The Hippocratic Oath, to which all doctors swore, include a clause: “I will perform no abortion.” So at that time the ratifying states could not have anticipated that they were authorizing abortion. The same argument applies to other Supreme Court rulings that could not have been anticipated at the time.

    • JerseyJeffersonian says:

      Yes, and don’t forget that seemingly universally applicable skeleton key for whatever centralizing government wants to see instituted, the Commerce Clause. Ubiquitous.

  5. jim ticehurst says:

    I Pray the Supreme Court will Rule The Right Way in this Matter..Over turn Rowe..and send this matter back to The States…There have been 60 million 500 Thousand Baby Abortions..Intanticide..in the United States between 1965 and 2019..That SIN is on American..Because Its a National SIN..Supported by The Government..Everything supports Immoral Conduct.Lewd Behaviour..There is No Excuses fir so much Irresponsible Conduct that These Baby Killers cant even use Birth Control to Prevent getting Pregnant.. ….Thats on The The Liberal and “Progressive” Politicians and Supporters…Or Young Peole are now inspired to Just have babys..Get thier Government checks..And Let Grandmothers and Mothers Raise them so they can go make more..Its a Systems that Itself …Breeds Welfare and Freeloader Abuses…and The MONSTER grows..

  6. BillWade says:

    We kill 60 million and then see a need to import replacement workers. This is murder for profit.

    • jim ticehurst says:

      Supporting the of Killing 60 Milliion Babys,,By Infanticide was a Political Decision..To Get and Keep a Select Voter Base ..Thats an Obvious Truth…and That Group doesnt want those babys To Put More Burden on the Welfare System anyhow..IMO…Importing “Workers”…Most Catholic..to Fill The Churches…Are More :”Worthy…of That Welfare …In The Minds of the Rome..and Father Joe…and Sister Nancy..It Earns them Communion…

  7. tonyB says:

    as man I have to admit, its not a man’s decision – womens body, their rule.

    men should let that matter go, IMO.

    that “right” or legal allowance to make an abortion is a compromise over human
    wrongdoings (crime like rape, incest, childrens first steps into sexuality etc…).

    also their will to do it even if forbiden by law – google it – herbal or chemical mix recepees, illegal dark room abortions. do you like it or not, it happen and as I said, it is a compromise, not a moral high road.

    my next POV about it may be gross to you all, but from utilitarianism POV – we are already to many.

    • Fred says:


      “we are already to many.”

      Will you be moving to one of the places where assisted suicide is legal and thus ‘decrease the surplus population’, or do you plan on hanging around some more?

  8. akaPatience says:

    It’s my understanding, based on what a former Planned Parenthood PR person revealed to me, that abortion has gradually lost ground in public opinion largely due to sonograms. Younger people, who put so much stock in the imagery of social media, have increasingly seen sonograms and finally realize how life-like a fetus is. While there are still those who aren’t moved by infanticide, their numbers are fewer.

    Democratic Party scare tactics, that pop up like clockwork every 4 years leading up to presidential elections, avoid informing naive/ignorant young women that abortion would remain legal in various states even if Roe v. Wade were struck down, and it could possibly remain legal in more states than it was pre-1973.

  9. Deap says:

    Why call it abortion – why not call it infanticide if the courts now allow it? Right to infanticide.

    Yes they courts now rule, in limited situations you are allowed to kill another human being. This answers the other nagging issue – ruling when life begins – which to date the court keeps dancing around. To call “abortion” infanticide answers this question with a bright line life begins – it begins a conception. Therefore this is infanticide.

    The court then needs to carve out exceptions when infanticide is legally acceptable – health of mother, life threatening deformities, rape, incest etc …but it is still infanticide. It is not a sanitized “abortion”.

    Many people today have become very comfortable committing infanticide, yet we pretend it is something else, we hang ribbons of obfuscation on the act, but we can’t call it by its real name? Why is that.

    Call it what it is, and rule that it is okay if this is what 5 justices decide, but stop dancing around the basics issues. Yes, you may murder your baby — vs. — yes you have a right to an abortion. One sound terrible and the other sounds so benign, yet both end up with the exact same result.

    Isn’t the real choice pretending infanticide is something else, and not what it really is – which is infanticide?

    Honesty is always the best policy. Call it what it is first – legally sanctioned murder. Then the court can reason why this might very well be okay.

    Pull the mask down and look this directly in the eye, and give a good lawful reason why it is okay simply by choosing another name for it. How does the court dance away from murder charges…………. if life begins at conception?

    I am sorry this sort of question is before the court because it is ill-suited to deal with such deeply fundamental societal issues, but the court system is the one system that rules on murder so it is now handed to them —- is abortion murder or not?

  10. Tony,
    The part of “women’s body, their rule” that you (and to be fair, most abortion advocates) invariably leave out is the part where the woman is also expected to take full responsibility for her body.

    I had a 25 year career which included annual weapons training and the one constant in training was that there are no “accidents”, just user error. There’s a reason they termed such an instance a “negligent discharge” as opposed to an accidental one.

    So even setting aside for the moment the ease by which a woman can obtain birth control in today’s society, if going out & getting the pill is simply too much of a burden or “just not fair” to her for any reason real or imagined, in the end no matter how much Jimmy wants sex without first getting a condom (unless he’s simply a cad) it isn’t going to happen unless Denise says so.

    If Denise then decides (after all it’s her body her choice, I’m told) to have unprotected sex because, well, Denise wanted sex with Jimmy right there right now, then Denise loses whatever moral high ground she may have imagined herself to be on once things don’t quite go as planned…

    And as a father who many moons ago went thru the horrors of “Family Court” with a spiteful ex, I’m with Dave Chappelle on this one:

Comments are closed.