Draft arguments in opposition to the following opponent's arguments.

The doctrine stare decisis is basically about the adherence in court processes to the previous precedents that had been decided before. In the Roe v. Wade case, the court decided that it was right for Roe to have abortions based on the constitutional provisions and the precedent set in the previous cases such as the planned parenthood v. Casey (1992). Under the supremacy clause, the supreme court decisions are federal laws, and therefore, can override the state laws in place, based on the determination of the constitutionality of abortion.

Under the US constitution, every citizen has a right to privacy and liberty, and abortion is considered a right to privacy because it is a personal decision and preference. However, there must be a balance between allowing abortion in some instances, and the applicable laws in place. Abortion should be allowed when the life of either the infant or the mother is at stake, because then it would be justified. Therefore, it is worth concluding that In Roe v, Wade, the court adhered to the doctrine of stare decisis.