Post: Roe v Wade and contracts
Posted by Keith Eaton on 12/22/12
When Roe v Wade was decided 98% of all doctors had taken
the hippocratic oath a binding contract enabling legal
license to practice. The constitution protects contracts
from ex post facto or interference with contracts by new
laws or rulings. Why wasnt the ruling a tortious
interference with many thousands of existing contracts?
Posts on this thread, including this one
- Roe v Wade and contracts, 12/22/12, by Keith Eaton.