In an article from January 28, 2020, Hadley Arkes argues that Congress could have overturned Roe v. Wade at the time of the original decision. The logic of separated powers implies that any "rights" established by the Supreme Court should be corroborated and defined by the legislature.

Some excerpts:

"In my last column, I recalled the classic example of the political branches, led by Lincoln, countering the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, the decision that threatened to sweep away all laws that barred slavery.  As I sought to show, Lincoln’s argument for the constitutional role of the political branches was anchored in the very logic of the separation of powers under the Constitution."

"Over the last twenty years some of us have sought to make Lincoln’s understanding explicit as part of the preamble, or understanding, attached to pro-life legislation.  That effort failed, for various reasons until 2002 when we succeeded in passing the Born-Alive Infants’ Protection Act, the Act that sought to protect children who had survived abortions."

"With the benign logic of the separation of powers, it would have made the most profound difference if Justice Brennan and his colleagues had understood, at the very outset, that if they loosed upon this country this new 'right to abortion,' the judges could not keep control of it.  Congress would have laid hands on it at once, and we know, from the record, what Congress was likely to have done."

"What I am suggesting is that the simple logic of the separation of powers – the logic explained by Lincoln and exemplified by his Administration – that this logic of the Constitution could have been enough to have spared us the decision that disfigured our laws and altered the moral sensibilities of our people."

Read the full article here.