Incurable Romance (You Can't Stop a Train)

ROE V. WADE: A DE NOVO REVIEW

Hard cases make for bad law. If you are not familiar with this phrase after the first semester of law school, you probably didn't attend a reputable law school, and there are plenty of other professions and far too many lawyers anyway. Similarly, by the end of the first semester the term "de novo review" should be old hat, but for the uninitiated it simply means that a reviewing court will attempt to review the facts and the law in the controversy from the very beginning, rather than picking up at some later point, crystalized on appeal in an assignment of error.

But what does a law student know, looking at how the law treats cases, and not letting a political or ideological bias intervene? There is no legal remedy for contributory negligence, and in equity one must come to court with clean hands.

Translate this rule to abortion, and what happens to Jane Roe attempting to recover from a birth control manufacturer, even beyond an affirmative defense of a disclaimer regarding any implied or expressed warranties? They are going to argue assumption of risk, and dismiss your case for contributory negligence, for which even a Good Samaritan, under the law, would be barred from recovery if they acted recklessly or in disregard.

So, what did Jane Roe's attorneys do, seeking injunctive relief with a birth expected to occur in two months after they filed their case? They sued the government, for which, at most, under 42 USC Section 1983, you get only reasonable attorney fees.

The problem, however, does not go away when you seek injunctive relief, even with a claim of a right to privacy, as alleged in the complaint and amended complaint, because no plaintiff has a right in privacy to that includes indemnification for reckless conduct, but it makes the government the indemnity insurer of the prophylactic and contraception industry, and surety for the abortion providers.

What then, rightly decided, happens to the classic exceptions of rape, incest and threatening the life of a woman? Any person has a right to self-defense, but the case of rape and incest would, in restitution, pass the cost to the responsible party, not declare a ripened expectancy, when the sperm unites with the egg, in a compelling moment, just property for the convenience of a person who has 1) acknowledged the expectancy and 2) who is contributorily negligent for her injury.