Q: What is Roe v. Wade?

Roe v. Wade was a case where a woman, using the alias Roe, was used by political groups to set before the US Supreme Court a case whereby abortionists argued it was a woman's right to have access to abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy.

Why was a SCOTUS case necessary to this end? Because up until that point, it was a State matter to manage the health rights of their citizenry. The majority of States at the time did not have laws supporting such a degree of widespread abortion access.

This is very important: the case decided on abortion access, not the legal right to abortion. I'll get more on what that means at the end.

For now, just keep in mind that the ruling meant the Federal Government established itself as having a vested interest in the abortion topic, which therefore permitted the use of Federal Funds and Legal Protections to support the ruling of access to abortion in all States.

This was the foot in the door for abortion to receive tax-payer monies. Until then, as it was a State interest, abortion clinics needed to survive by turning a profit. The industry of abortion cannot survive on its own merits. There is no way to be profitable with such a service.

Q: Is Roe v. Wade constitutional?

Roe v. Wade and the subsequent declarations after its ruling is unconstitutional...

But not for the reasons you think. It has nothing to do with taking a human life being against the Constitution, rights of a woman, or health access.

Instead, Roe v. Wade ham-fistedly, using circular logic, found that abortion access is necessary for equality. When asked to cite what Amendment supports this "right" most pro-abortion judges will deflect from the challenge, because there is factually no particular right ensuring abortion or even any rights ensuring access to medical procedures. It's a farce. There is no line that even hints at such a thing, so the Judges at the time can be argued to have ruled unconstitutionally, which is a BIG deal on its own...

The Judiciary cannot establish new rights, as they cannot write laws, only interpret them. They Judiciary failed to cite which part of the Constitution they interpreted to make their ruling. By doing so, they effectively wrote new Law.

The Legislature is the only one who has the authority to make abortion a woman's right. Legislature have not done so, because the legal precedent that would set would also disrupt any attempts to dictate an individual's health.

Roe v. Wade, therefore, keeps us in an intentional limbo because the Legal Precedent set by enshrining it into Law would backfire and take out their own attempts at health mandates. We've seen this hypocrisy where mask and "vaccine" mandates are concerned when compared to abortion.

Ultimately, however, it is unconstitutional because the Federal Government has no vested interest in the health of the citizenry. That's a State function. State Governments are the ones who build hospitals, clinics, and decide what drugs are legal/illegal, not the Federal Government.

The ONLY reason the Federal Government would concern itself with such matters is if it involves inter-State commerce and/or protections. Abortion, factually, is not a matter that necessarily involves two States interacting with one another.

For that reason, the Federal Government is overstepping its authority when it says all States have to follow a singular rule of law concerning abortion access. Smart lawyers would pursue this line of legal procedure if they really intended to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Q: What does Roe v. Wade getting overturned ACTUALLY DO!?

Well, the Court would have to find that the Federal Government (Judiciary in particular) overstepped its bounds when it declared universal access to abortion through 9 months of pregnancy.

This will actually throw it back to how it used to be, by letting States decide if they will support abortions, both financially and morally.

So, anyone freaking out about it being overturned should be seen as nothing more than a brain-washed baby-killing zombie fluffed up by propaganda.

Let me be clear:

ROE v. WADE GETTING OVERTURNED DOES NOT CRIMINIALIZE ABORTION!

All it does is throw it back to the States to decide yea or nay on the abortion access question, as it should be.

Seeing how the industry relies on donations and Federal Funding avenues, all abortion clinics will crumble under their own weight. Abortion does not create anything nor does it offer a necessary service. It is a luxury service, at best. The entire industry hemorrhages money from the State as well as Federal Government.

It's actually against a State's interests to reduce its population. Less people = less commerce = less taxes. States want people to live there, so they can get more commerce, which translates to taxes, which translates to being able to fund the State.

So, yes, Roe v. Wade could indirectly ruin abortion because it will destroy the industry, even if a State like New York includes living newborns outside the womb as A-OK to kill. There's just no money in it without Federal Aid and Legal Protections. It would then require donations to subsist, and the demographic who "needs" abortion access are most definitely not the ones to have a spare penny to toss towards a baby-mill. If they did have that money, they'd probably not be seeking an abortion to get out of the expense of having a baby.

I hope that clears things up. Roe v. Wade getting overturned will not outlaw abortions. It will only remove the Federal Element in the Abortion Access question.