Sunday, March 29, 2026
ISSN 2765-8767
  • Home
  • Courses
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Support Us
  • Home
  • Courses
  • About Us
  • Contact us
  • Support Us

The Lancet Op-Ed: Why Roe v. Wade must be defended

“Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views.” So begins a draft opinion by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, leaked from the US Supreme Court on May 2, 2022. If confirmed, this judgement would overrule the Court’s past decisions to establish the right to access abortion. In Alito’s words, “the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives”. The Court’s opinion rests on a strictly historical interpretation of the US Constitution: “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.” His extraordinary text repeatedly equates abortion with murder.

The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution has been the main foundation underpinning the right of American women to an abortion. That 1868 Amendment was passed during the period of American Reconstruction, when states’ powers were being subjected to certain limitations. The goal of the Amendment was to prevent states from unduly restricting the freedoms of their citizens. That guarantee of personal liberty, so the Supreme Court had previously held, extended to pregnant women, with qualifications, who decided to seek an abortion. Alito rejected that reasoning. He argued that for any right not mentioned in the Constitution to be protected, it must be shown to have had deep roots in the nation’s history and tradition. Abortion does not fulfil that test. Worse, Roe was an exercise in “raw judicial power”, it “short-circuited the democratic process”, and it was “egregiously wrong” from the very beginning. It was now time, according to Alito, “to set the record straight”.

Source: The Lancet

Daily Remedy

Daily Remedy

Dr. Jay K Joshi serves as the editor-in-chief of Daily Remedy. He is a serial entrepreneur and sought after thought-leader for matters related to healthcare innovation and medical jurisprudence. He has published articles on a variety of healthcare topics in both peer-reviewed journals and trade publications. His legal writings include amicus curiae briefs prepared for prominent federal healthcare cases.

Videos

Policy Shift in Peptide Regulation

GLP-1 Drugs Have Moved Past Weight Loss. Medicine Has Not Fully Caught Up.

Glucagon-Like Peptide–Based Therapies and Longevity: Clinical Implications from Emerging Evidence

Glucagon-like peptide–based therapies are increasingly used for weight management and glycemic control, but their potential impact on long-term survival remains uncertain. The clinical question addressed in this report is whether treatment with glucagon-like peptide receptor agonists is associated with reductions in all-cause mortality and age-related morbidity beyond their established metabolic effects. This question matters because these agents are now prescribed across broad patient populations, including individuals without diabetes, and long-term exposure may influence cardiovascular, oncologic, and neurodegenerative outcomes. Understanding whether...

Read more

Join Our Newsletter!