I think you will concede, as you suggested in one of your first coments, that Ms. Sweeney was sloppy in her use of the "quotation", by not tracking it to its purported source. That is far different from stating that she made up a damning quote. As previously noted, the quote is consistent with general commentary on the Roe v.Wade decision since the date it was issued, including commentary by various justices over the years. By using the quote, she is not saying that Justice Blackmun did not support the decision; plainly he did, otherwise he would not have written the opinion. You can interpret the reasoning in the opinion as being arbitrary, as many people have.

I am not saying that you need to announce your position to engage in this dialogue; it is a matter of curiosity. I have considered your argument, and believe that you have blown out of all proportion the use of a quotation that plainly was taken from a source other than the decsion itself. So, despite your protestations to the ocntrary, it appears that your principle objection is to Ms. Sweeney's journalistic lapse, rather than with the substance of her argument. Leaving aside the source of the comment, did Roe v. Wade contain an aribtrary standard?

The fact the Supreme Court decided to put lipstick and makeup on a pig (and to continue the bastardization of the Constitution in the process) does not chnage the fact that it's still a pig. Don't forget that the Supreme Court also applied "theories of constituional law" in reaching its decisions in Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson. History has not treated those decisions favorably, and, it is hoped, that one day Roe v. Wade will join those decisions on the scrap heap.