What Roe v. Wade should have said : the nation's top legal experts rewrite America's most controversial decision
"In What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said, eleven distinguished constitutional scholars rewrite the opinions in this controversial case in light of thirty years' 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 case. In addition, Jack M. Balkin gives a detailed introduction to Roe v. Wade, chronicling the history of the Roe litigation, the constitutional and political clashes that followed, and the state of abortion rights in the United States today."--BOOK JACKET
Trial and arbitral proceedings
xiii, 288 pages : illustrations ; 23 cm
9780814799185, 0814799183
57319728
PrefacePart I: IntroductionRoe v.Wade: An Engine of ControversyJack M. BalkinPart II: Revised Opinions in Roe v.Wade and Doe v. BoltonJack M. Balkin (judgment of the Court) Reva B. Siegel (concurring) Mark Tushnet (concurring)Anita L. Allen (concurring in the judgment) Jed Rubenfeld (concurring in the judgment except as to Doe) Robin West (concurring in the judgment) Cass R. Sunstein (concurring in the judgment) Akhil Reed Amar (concurring in Roe, dissenting in Doe) Jeffrey Rosen (dissenting) Teresa Stanton Collett (dissenting) Michael Stokes Paulsen (dissenting) Photo Appendix to the Opinion of Michael Stokes Paulsen Comments from the Contributors Appendix: The Constitution of the United States of America: Selected ProvisionsRoe v.Wade: A Selected Bibliography About the Contributors Table of Cases Index