Biden is correct in his summation of Roe v. Wade. Cornell University Law School's Supreme Court Syllabus summary of the decision can be found here. Please see the pertinent excerpt below. The citations at the end of each paragraph refer to the complete text of the decision.

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

Myself, I can remember several Supreme Court decisions, especially if you count historical ones like Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Board of Education. Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a splashy one around here (again concerning abortion). And what was that one about the government's right of eminent domain that we all argued about here for a couple of days? Oh, yeah: Kelo v. City of New London. OK, I had to look up the name, but I remember the particulars well enough to find it in two seconds.

If a candidate for VP, or any other office, could describe a case in all of its particulars except name, I give points for that. But there was a big gaping hole with no words coming out in Palin's case. Jeez... not even Brown? Not even the Bakke case? (V. the California Board of Regents, if I remember correctly.)

I just don't know. Maybe the reason I remember this stuff is because I had a real education. Maybe it's just because I've been paying attention.