This book was a fascinating read, especially if you're into feminist legal theory or have an interest in how pivotal cases like Roe v. Wade shape law and society. The concept behind it is pretty unique: the author, Jack, brought together eleven constitutional scholars to rewrite the opinions of Roe using only the laws and legal precedents that were available in 1973. This exercise sheds light on how differently the case could have been argued—and how much the makeup of the Supreme Court influences the outcome of such monumental decisions. It was eye-opening to see how the legal arguments could have shifted based on the existing case law at the time, and the exploration of alternative ways to frame reproductive and sexual freedoms was especially intriguing.

What stood out for me was how some contributors, particularly those with an anti-choice or partial-concurrence perspective, highlighted weaknesses in the pro-choice arguments. Their insights force the pro-choice movement to think critically about the legal challenges it faces and to prepare stronger counterarguments moving forward. That said, I do wish the book included some basic context about the lesser-known cases referenced in the arguments—there are mentions of landmark cases like Brown v. Board and Plessy v. Ferguson, but a bit more background on the others would have been helpful without the need to constantly search for them online.

Overall, this is a smart and thought-provoking book that digs into the nuanced gray areas of constitutional law and reproductive rights. It’s one of the best legal theory books I’ve read, offering fresh perspectives on how Roe v. Wade could have been framed differently, given the laws of the time. If you’re familiar with the original case, you’ll appreciate how this book challenges the assumptions behind it, though if you're new to legal jargon, you might want to have some references handy. Still, I’d definitely recommend it to anyone looking to better understand the complex intersections of law, freedom, and social change.

Perhaps one of the most brilliant legal scholars in regards to women's rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg often said Roe v Wade got it wrong with the use of the 14th amendment in its ruling. Bader Ginsburg was in favor of the Roe v Wade ultimate decision to give women the right to an abortion.. That being said, this book allowed constitutional scholars to offer their legal opinions as if they had decide the original Roe v Wade decision in 1973. I found this collection of legal opinions quire insightful particularly in light of the Dobbs' decision in 2022 that overturned Roe v Wade.

I receive this ARC copy of this book via Netgalley in exchange for my honest review.

I could not get into this book which resulted in my not finishing the book, seemed like it was a lot more of just paraphrasing.

This was an interesting read. The premise behind this book is to go back to 1973 when the original lawsuit came before the Supreme Court and they ruled on it, which had an impact that still ripples through to today. Jack has tasked eleven constitutional scholars to rewrite the opinions based on laws that existed from 1973 and before. What comes next is an interesting study into how impactful it is as to who is on the Supreme Court and how this major decision could have honestly changed based on how it was argued with laws that were already in existence. I think the response that really landed well with me is the one that kind of hit the Supreme Court with an idea that whatever law is put into effect, that the arm of the Supreme Court is not the final word on the whole of the situation, but an end to the one point that was made, that there are still other avenues to explore based on the laws of the land. I thought this was extremely well done and to be able to read views across the board was insightful. One thing I think I wish would have been added in this is a small blurb about the court cases used within these individuals arguments. Some are well known cases, Brown vs Board of Education, Plessy vs Ferguson, but I think I would have been better equipped if I had a very basic idea of what the other cases were without having to go to the internet, which I know would have added to the bulk of the book, but maybe that's why it wasn't included. I like Jack's approach and appreciate the individuals who participated as it gave me a better insight to the dynamic s of the case as a whole, and more respect of those who interpret and enact the laws of our country.
*I received a copy of this book from NetGalley. This review is my own opinion*

A dense dive into Roe v. Wade with what should have been and should be addressed. Explore how vague wording provided a pathway to overturn as well as historical treatment of pregnancy. With the forced burden of carrying a child states need to consider their role in care in utero and after. The book continues to circle back to the question - Is this constitutional?