Follow us!

    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.

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.