has the supreme court overruled roe vs. wade? i mean, if you put that as a factual statement, the answer clearly was, no, it has not overruled roe vs. wade. it was clear that the women's rights movement it was a risk the court would overturn roe vs. wade. but they also had very much in mind the fact that in 1992 was a presidential election year and they were determined to turn this lawsuit and this supreme court case into a political campaign issue to try primarily to help bill clinton win the white house. in fact, there is some evidence from the political world that this case and the outcome of this case did help. but there's another aspect of katherine colbert's arguments which i think really enticed me to write about it. the hardest thing that a lawyer appearing before the supreme court has to do is to keep control of the argument that they want to make because there are 9 justices, 8 because justice thomas doesn't participate in oral argument but there are at least 9 very smart people who have already done some thinking about

beginning with justice o'connor's ascension to the bench, it was clear in the roe vs. wade decision establishing a woman's right to have abortion, was under siege. each time an new opinion came out, the court appeared to be less committed to sustaining the right to terminate an abortion and it finally got to the point where the majority was down to 5. five-4. there were indications in 1989 that there might be a vote, and the administration had tried several times to persuade the court to overturn the ruling. i chose this particular case for oral arguments because of the audacity of the council who argued in favor of maintaining growth. the women's rights movement, very much hearing was in jeopardy, shaved this case into a genuine test case. everyone was a test of the new principal. this was put together by the women's rights movement as a fundamental test of a viable precedent. we put together the brief, we asked the simple question, it was entirely unlike any question you will see at the front of the supreme court's petition for review. if you put that as a factual stateme

docket then then became constitutional eyes, you could get some of these examples -- abortion, roe vs. wade in 1973, sex discrimination under the heightened scrutiny and of the 14th amendment, commercial speech is now under the umbrella of the first amendment, busing as a remedy in school desegregation cases, recently gave rights in lawrence vs. texas -- quite a list of areas in which the court has steadily expanded its reach of what it takes to be a constitutional matter. in addition to the new areas either have been revivals of or expansions of areas that were familiar before that point, one would have two-point, for example to the rehnquist court and federalism. breathing life back into the tenth and 11th amendments. finding limits for congress as commerce. i used to tell my students that would never see that happen -- well, i was proved wrong by the court in u.s. vs. lopez. finding limits on the congress's power under section five of the 14th amendment at one time seemed unlikely but the court has done that in cases like this city of brianna. this is store near expansion of something to

this was a period in which the center held justice o'connor's vote matter add great deal, so roe vs. wade was not overturned. affirmative action survived, and substantive due process that i mentioned. then came 2005, the extraordinary sequence of events which seemed a few weeks in time in which president bush nominated john roberts to fill o'connor's seat and then justice rehnquist died and roberts was moved over to the chief justice's chair and then samuel alito was nominated to bill o'connor's seat so that was the beginning of the roberts court. i thought i would give you a glimpse. some of these will be fanl yar, sots not, not so much about how the court has changed in doctrinal terms, but in many ways what a profoundly different court it is from the court it was in 1969 in terms of who is on the court and how they do their business. the first place, there has been a complete turnover. there are no warren court justices left. indeed, i believe there is no one on the court who behaves like a warren court justices. there are no brennans or thurgood marshalls on the court. secondly, i was

madam president, the supreme court has ruled very clearly in 1973 in roe vs. wade that it is legal, legal, for a woman in the early stages of her pregnancy to make this tough choice and get the health care she needs. and, yes, later in the pregnancy, if her health is threatened, if her life is threatened, yes, a doctor can help her in that type of a circumstance. and here we have many cases where violence is being used, where websites are being put up, with pictures of doctors and nurses trying to insight trouble. trying to insight violence. that is not what the law allows. now, in the case of dr. tiller, he is a doctor. after this tragedy where he was shot and killed in church and before that he had his arm shot but he continued his work. many, many women came forward to attest to how kind he was to them in their good need. dr. tiller operated within the law. there were those who tried to run him out of town with lawsuits. and he won all of those. so when a procedure is legal and a doctor is following the rules to have a murder of a doctor in that circumstance is