"The article was somewhat contradictory as well , condemning the Court for violating their own precedent ( `` In Roe , the Court for the first time considered liberty to be a psychological , sociological , and economic expression `` ) , while earlier they condemned precedent ( `` Mere precedent is a dangerous source of author i ty , and should not be regarded as deciding questions of constitutional power except where the acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered well settled `` ) . The articles main point , that the `` enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights , shall not be construed to deny or disparage othe r s retained by the people `` negates Roe v. Wade is erroneous , since the fetus has not been born and the Courts could find no precedent where the Constitution applied pre-natally ."
"But the Court went further than necessary . They set the point at which States could legally impose restrictions on abortion negating many state statutes in the process and establishing the `` right to abortion `` ON DEMAND at any time . That was an exercise in judicial activism . They took statures that existed in many states and arbitrarily determined at what point they could be applied . It 's not the Court 's function to legislate from the bench . It is up to the States and Federal Legislatures to determine at what point the fetus ' rights are protected ."
"somewhat contradictory condemning the Court negates Roe v. Wade"
"the Court went further than right to abortion"