guments against the Roe decision can be quickly invalidated by weighing the precedents of Constitutional decisions reached by the Supreme Court in addition to reading the specific wordage contained in the Constitution.
When most people speak disapprovingly of the Roe decision, (“Roe v. Wade”, 1997) they base their objections purely on moral grounds; but scholars, lawyers and especially judges who condemn the decision should only do so based on constitutional grounds in addition to voicing their moral objections. The argument against the decision should address the 9th Amendment which states, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (“Bill of Rights”, 2006).
Those opposed have said that the ninth, or any other amendment, does not specifically mention abortion therefore the Constitution is not applicable when attempting to determine the legality of abortion rights. This opinion, however, very obviously contradicts the short and to the point statement that is the Ninth Amendment which clearly encourages the recognition of abortion and all other rights over and above what is contained in the Constitution. Just because the word ‘abortion’ does not appear, the Constitution is still the origin for legal precedence for this issue as it is for all other civil rights cases. (Dorf, 2003).
Those that criticize the Roe decision have complained that the nation’s founders used general terms to frame the Constitution and did not intend for the ambiguous use of the word ‘rights’ to include the right to an abortion. They further propose that those who ratified the Constitution were ‘God fearing’ men who would have opposed the practice. Even if this argument could be proved valid on a constitutional basis, the inference that the Founders were wholly opposed to the practice is probably inaccurate. A good deal of Justice Blackmun’s opinion regarding the Roe