Half a century of guaranteed abortion rights in the US has come to an end Friday, as the Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v Wade decision.
In a 6-3 vote, the court ruled in favor of the state of Mississippi in the case of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, allowing the state to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, and effectively striking down the court’s 1973 ruling in Roe that legalized abortion nationwide.
SCOTUS’s decision to overturn Roe comes as no surprise after a draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito was and published by in May.
Alito, in the final opinion issued Friday, wrote that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, were wrong and must be overturned.
‘The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by constitutional provision,’ Alito wrote.
‘Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,’ Alito wrote. ‘Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.’
Roe’s overturning was made possible by three conservative judges appointed by former President Donald Trump.
The consequential decision will transform the landscape of women’s reproductive health in America, making abortion rights be determined by states, unless Congress acts. It’s also expected to disproportionately affect minorities and people of color, who already often face limited access to healthcare.
In a joint dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan criticized the majority, writing in closing: ‘With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent.’
‘After today, young women will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had,’ Breyer wrote. ‘The majority accomplishes that result without so much as considering how women have relied on the right to choose or what it means to take that right away.’
What the ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization means
- The consequential decision does not make abortion illegal, but now states can move to ban it
- Thirteen states have trigger laws in place that ban abortion in a post-Roe nation
- Several other states also have near-total bans in place, and it’s possible legislation in Republican-led states may become more strict on the procedure
- The decision may also open the door for several other important rulings to be overturned, including protecting access to contraception, allow same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage
- Democrats have expressed outrage to the decision, while many Republicans praised the high court, including former President Donald Trump
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, called the ruling ‘outrageous and heart-wrenching’ while House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, a Republican, said ‘Every unborn child is previous, extraordinary, and worthy of protection’
- Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the decision would ‘live in infamy as a step backward for women’s rights and human rights’
- Texas’ Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, celebrated the court for allowing states ‘to protect the lives of all unborn babies in America’
With Roe overturned, individual states are responsible to determine how they will regulate abortions.
Thirteen states have so-called trigger laws in place that take immediate effect once Roe is struck down that ban or severely limit access to abortion, and another half-dozen states have near total bands after six weeks of pregnancy — long before many people know they are pregnant.
Alternatively, 16 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws protecting the right to have an abortion even without Roe.
The overruling of Roe may open the door for other rulings important to American’s rights to be overturned.
Justice Clarence Thomas in an concurring opinion with Friday’s ruling, wrote that the court should examine other cases that fall under the court’s due process precedents, naming those that protect access to contraception, allow same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage.
‘For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell,’ Thomas wrote.
The Due Process Clause ensures Americans have the right to due process before their inalienable rights are taken away.
This is a possibility the White House has seemingly prepared for.
This week, Vice President Kamala Harris met with reproductive rights leaders to discuss the consequences of striking down Roe.
‘If Roe is overturned, I believe that states will then have the power to interfere in personal decisions,’ Harris said, adding that if states have determined that life begins at fertilization that could restrict access to vitro treatments and contraception.
She added that striking down Roe ‘could clear the way for challenges to other fundamental rights,’ including same-sex marriage.
With the high court preparing to break for recess, a decision has been expected but didn’t come on Tuesday or Thursday, when nine other opinions were released. The court added an additional day to its schedule to release opinions on Friday.
Supreme Court decision terms begin in October and last through the end of June or early July, and the biggest cases are typically saved for the very end.
Following the leak, President Joe Biden released a statement saying he believes a woman’s right to choose is ‘fundamental.’
‘Roe has been the law of the land for almost 50 years, and basic fairness and the stability of our law demand that it not be overturned,’ Biden said.
The President is said to be considering several measures in response, including eliminating barriers to accessing medication abortion and challenging state laws that criminalize people who travel to a different state to receive an abortion.
.
