Randy Beck has just posted a new piece entitled Fueling Controversy on SSRN. He responds to a recent Yale Law Journal article by Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel, Before (and After) Roe v. Wade: New Questions about Backlash, in which they question the received wisdom that the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade generated a political backlash, inflaming conflict over abortion and damaging the political process. While Professor Beck acknowledges the pre-Roe political conflict over abortion, he points to the multiple drafts of the Roe opinion circulated by Justice Blackmun during consideration of the case. Each draft became more and more expansive, with the Court ultimately adopting an interpretation of the constitution that prohibited protection of the unborn child any time prior to viability. Beck argues that the viability rule was a radical expansion of the availability of abortion, “restricting the range of permissible legislative action” and “disabl[ing] legislative bodies from negotiating political compromises like those worked out in other countries.” While his conclusions may not be new, Beck’s careful review of the opinion drafting process in Roe provides substantial evidence for the argument that the Court improperly and unnecessarily constitutionalized a question that was the subject of active deliberation by the people through their elected representatives.