I think it ironic that the argument du jour is that, no matter what the merits of the result, Roe was wrongly, or ineptly, decided.
When I was in college in the early 1970s, an American history professor taught me what had become the accepted wisdom of that period--that Brown v. Board was a weak and wrongly-argued decision--even though it may have been the right thing to do. This very same argument, now being used against Roe, is unfortunately giving pause even to those who favor a woman's right to have control over her own body.
I am an historian, not a lawyer. As such, I find it interesting that those who seek to overturn Roe, like those who sought to overturn Brown, hide behind legal arguments when they cannot argue the merits of whether or not a woman has a right to control her ability to reproduce, a right to protect her body from interference by the state. In fact, Roe provides women with the right to reproduce as well as the right not to reproduce. Roe ensures that this country, unlike China, can never tell a woman how many or how few children she can have.
I am wondering whether all constitutional decisions that expand the rights of individuals, against the will of the conservative right wing, must undergo this type of questioning (read undermining).
The basic fact of the matter is that our Constitution was written by revolutionary men who believed in the ideals of the Enlightenment. They had just thrown off the power of one government that was trying to usurp the rights of individuals. They would hardly have encouraged the development of another one.
The Constitution is a document that, when written, sought nothing more than to limit the rights of government over the personal freedom of individuals. The ninth amendment states that just because a right is not outlined in the constitution does not mean that individuals do not possess it.
It is time that we stopped seeing the Constitution as a document that limits the rights of individuals to what is written within it. The opposite is in fact the case--governments are limited to the powers granted them by the people of this country through the constitution. And that's about as originalist--and as revolutionary--as you can get.