Wednesday, July 15, 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

FDA Evaluation of Certain Bulk Drug Substances in Compounding: Clinical Interpretation

FDA Evaluation of Certain Bulk Drug Substances in Compounding: Clinical Interpretation

Clinicians increasingly encounter patients using or requesting peptide-based therapies sourced through compounding pharmacies. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has identified a subset of bulk drug substances, including certain peptides, that may present significant safety risks when used in compounded formulations. The clinical question is whether these regulatory signals reflect meaningful patient-level risk and how they should influence prescribing behavior. This matters because compounded peptides often sit outside traditional approval pathways, creating uncertainty around quality, dosing consistency, and safety. Understanding...

Read more

Join Our Newsletter!