What Roe V. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision

Taking positions both for and against abortion, 11 distinguished constitutional scholars rewrite the Supreme Court's opinions in this landmark case in light of 30 years of experience, offering illuminating arguments that get to the heart of the case, but making use only of sources available at the time of the original decision.

View the Table of Contents. Read the Introduction.

aBrings together some of Americaas brightest legal minds to make the best arguments available for and against the constitutional right to abortion. An exceptional volume and essential for anyone who wants to understand the constitutional debate about "Roe,"a
--Nadine Strossen, President, American Civil Liberties Union, and Professor of Law, New York Law School

"The interest of the whole lies precisely in its depiction within a single volume of where the debate stands."
--"Federal Lawyer"

"Reading Jack Balkin's edited book, "What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said," conjures up thoughts in the reader, like 'darn, I wish I had thought of that.'"
--"The Law and Politics Book Review"

aThis array of intelligent and serious alternatives to the Court's stunningly inadequate opinion in "Roe v. Wade" asome reaching the same, some the opposite conclusion, some in between ais the most convincing argument against any litmus test on this subject either way for future Supreme Court Justices.a
--Charles Fried, Harvard Law School

"Whatever beliefs you may hold concerning these issues, you will find those beliefs subjected to thoughtful--even passionate--challenge in at least one of these opinions."
--Kenneth L. Karst, UCLA School of Law

""What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said" provides vigorous and diverse substitute opinions by leading scholars that broaden, deepen, and improve the current debates while sharpening what a supreme court can and cannot do on such a highly disputed matter."
--Martha Minow, Harvard Law School

"In an era in which it's entirely possible that someone else is actually going to get to reimagine what"Roe v. Wade" should have said, this book is an interesting fantasy excercise."
--"Bitch"

In January 1973, the Supreme Court's opinion in "Roe v. Wade" struck down most of the country's abortion laws, and held for the first time that women had a constitutional right to safe and legal abortions. Three decades later, Roe v. Wade remains one of the Supreme Court's most controversial decisions, and political struggles over abortion rights still divide American politics. Roe has emerged as a central issue in federal judicial nominations, becoming a powerful symbol in debates about judicial restraint, judicial activism, and the proper role of courts in a democratic society.

In "What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said," eleven distinguished constitutional scholars rewrite the opinions in this landmark case in light of thirty years of experience but making use only of sources available at the time of the original decision. Taking positions both for and against the constitutional right to abortion, the contributors offer novel and illuminating arguments that get to the heart of this fascinating case. In addition, Jack Balkin gives a detailed introduction to "Roe v. Wade," chronicling the history of the "Roe" litigation, the constitutional and political clashes that followed it, and the state of abortion rights in the U.S. today.

Contributing their versions of "Roe" are: Anita Allen, Akhil Amar, Jack M. Balkin, Teresa Stanton Collett, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Jeffrey Rosen, Jed Rubenfeld, Reva Siegel, Cass Sunstein, Mark Tushnet, and Robin West.