Understanding the Dobbs Decision

The Supreme Court Decision Overturning Roe v. Wade

Part I

Confusion and misinformation surrounds the recent decision of the Supreme Court that overturned the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973. Over the next few weeks, our Respect Life group would like to provide five points that can help make the ruling understandable. These points are gleaned from www.SupremeCourtVictory.com of Priests for Life (Look under Talking Points.).

• In Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court stated that abortion, unlike any other medical procedure and unlike most other activities, had a special status as a “Constitutional right.”
   
• As a result, it became very difficult for the law to prohibit or limit it. The Court said the American people, through their elected lawmakers, could not prohibit abortion prior to viability.
   
• Roe and Casey did admit, however, that the “right to abortion” was not absolute, because along with the woman’s freedom, there was also her health to protect and a developing life within her to consider. The Court said that the state does have an interest in protecting these, but the ruling tied the hands of the state as far as how much protection it could provide.
   
• Therefore, just about any time pro-life laws were passed, court battles would ensue, and the Supreme Court had to rule on abortion dozens of times. But the rules the court used in to evaluate laws about abortion kept changing and were unclear. Rulings on abortion laws became very unpredictable. As a result, meaningful changes in the law were difficult.

Part II

Confusion and misinformation surrounds the recent decision of the Supreme Court that overturned the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973. This week our Respect Life group provides the second in a series of five points that can help make the ruling understandable. These points are gleaned from www.SupremeCourtVictory.com of Priests for Life.
 

• In the recent Dobbs case, the Court examined the question of whether the Constitution really does confer a “right to abortion,” and concluded that it does not. The Dobbs case was really the first time the Court effectively addressed this question since the Roe and Casey rulings did not.
   
• The decision that abortion is not a Constitutional right, the Dobbs case overruled Roe and Casey and returned the regulation of abortion to the people and their elected representatives. This means that the Supreme Court is not imposing any national policy. The ruling leaves it to the American people to work out abortion policy through their elected representatives.
   
• The Dobbs case clarified that a “right to abortion” is not found in the text of the Constitution nor in the history, tradition, and legal practices of our country. A “Constitutional right” is either in the text or in the history. Abortion is in neither. History shows it was a crime in every state.
   
• Supporters of Roe and Casey say the “right to abortion” is rooted in the broader right of “privacy,” or in the provision of “liberty” in the 14th Amendment. But history does not show this, and the Dobbs ruling reminded us that Courts need to be very cautious about reading into “liberty” rights that are not there.
   
• The “right to abortion” is unlike the privacy rights one has regarding the choice of a spouse or how one chooses to educate a child, because none of these or other privacy rights involve purposely ending a life. Even Roe and Casey acknowledge that abortion is inherently different, and “a unique act.”

Part III

Confusion and misinformation surrounds the recent decision of the Supreme Court that overturned the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973. This week our Respect Life group has provided the third in a series of five points that can help make the ruling understandable. These points are gleaned from www.SupremeCourtVictory.com of Priests for Life.
 

• In deciding cases, the Supreme Court considers how it has ruled in the past on similar issues, and has a presumption of sticking with past decisions, for the sake of the predictability and consistency of decisions. This is called “stare decisis.” But the Court affirms that this is not absolute or an inexorable command. The Court has reversed itself many times when it realized a past decision was wrong, e.g. Brown v. Board of Education which, after 58 years, reversed a decision that legalized segregation.
   
• The Dobbs case cited five reasons for overruling Roe and Casey:
   
  1. The decision that abortion was a “Constitutional right” was an egregious error on a deeply consequential matter, which it removed from the democratic lawmaking process.
      
  2. The reasoning behind Roe and Casey was exceptionally weak. Both decisions drew lines  about when and in what way abortion could be regulated, but gave no reason why the Constitution would require the lines to be drawn. The policy they set was more legislative than judicial activity. And Casey, while upholding Roe, also modified it significantly, changed its reasoning, and overruled two other abortion cases that relied on it.
      
  3. The standards that the Roe and Casey decisions gave the courts for evaluating the constitutionality of abortion laws were so vague, inconsistent, and undefined that they were unworkable. They did not provide clear and predictable guidance needed for the courts.

Part IV

Confusion and misinformation surrounds the recent decision of the Supreme Court that overturned the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973. This week our Respect Life group provides the second in a series of five points that can help make the ruling understandable. These points are gleaned from www.SupremeCourtVictory.com of Priests for Life.
 

• Two additional reasons cited by the Supreme Court for overturning the Roe and Casey decisions are:
  • The Roe and Casey decisions did damage to other areas of the law, including the free speech rights of those who oppose abortion, and to doctrines like "third party standing," which is usually not permitted, but allowed abortionists to represent their patients in court.
  • Contrary to what Casey said, the advancement of women in society does not depend on the availability of abortion.
• The Dobbs decision allows legislatures to pass any laws prohibiting or restricting abortion as long as there is a rational basis for those laws and that they are advancing a legitimate interest of the state, e.g., protecting unborn babies, women's health, and the integrity of the medical profession, eliminating barbaric procedures, protecting unborn babies from pain.
• In short, the Supreme Court no longer wants to be the "medical review board" for abortion policy, not does it want to replace its judgement for the judgement the lawmakers whom the people elect. Laws on abortion that are challenged in court are to be given "a strong presumption of validity."