The Dispatch: More from CWR...

What makes Dobbs the best, and possibly last, chance to overturn Roe? 

Matt Hadro By Matt Hadro for CNA

The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. / Shutterstock

Washington, D.C. Newsroom, Nov 28, 2021 / 00:00 am (CNA).

Part of a continuing series examining the U.S. Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a direct challenge to the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion throughout the United States.

After nearly a half century of legal abortion throughout the United States, that precedent could fall  — or stand  — through one critical case now before the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet what makes it possibly the most significant abortion case in decades?

The Supreme Court on Dec. 1 will hear arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, concerning Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks. The court will take up the question of whether all bans on pre-viability abortions are unconstitutional.

Legal experts say the case presents an ideal opportunity for the Supreme Court to reconsider previous rulings that upheld legal abortion nationwide.

The 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide, Roe v. Wade, said that states could not ban abortion before the “viability” of the fetus — the point at which unborn child can survive outside the womb, determined by the court to be around 24 to 28 weeks into pregnancy.

Nearly 20 years later, the court upheld that ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, saying that states could regulate pre-viability abortions but could not pose an “undue burden” in doing so.

Mississippi’s law bans most abortions after 15 weeks — well before the point of “viability” as established in Roe and upheld in Casey.

“The Dobbs case presents a square challenge to Roe v. Wade,” said Michael Stokes Paulsen, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, in an email interview with CNA.

“So, Mississippi’s law forbids abortions that Roe and Casey say must be permitted,” Paulsen said. “There’s no way around the conflict between the Mississippi law and the court’s precedents on abortion. One or the other has to go!”

Steve Aden, chief legal officer and general legal counsel for Americans United for Life, agreed that Roe itself is at the heart of the Dobbs case.

“It is a tremendous historical opportunity for the court to review Roe, and finally throw it on the ash heap of history,” Aden told CNA.

While Mississippi’s law directly challenges Roe and Casey, those rulings themselves were already vulnerable and ripe for reconsideration, said O. Carter Snead, a law professor and director of the de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture at the University of Notre Dame.

Both Snead and Aden helped author separate amicus briefs at the Supreme Court in favor of Mississippi’s law. They both explained to CNA why they think Roe and Casey were so poorly decided.

“Defenders of Roe and Casey hardly ever argue on the substance of those cases’ reasoning,” Snead said. Rather, defenders of those cases appeal to the legal doctrine of stare decisis which “invites the court  — although it does not require it  — to consider the practical consequences of undoing the prior precedent,” he said.

Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored the majority opinion in Roe, grounded the “right” to abortion in the “right to privacy.” He considered it an “unenumerated” right, Snead said, one not listed in the Constitution but nevertheless believed by some to be a right that “we basically discover through our own reflection.”

According to Snead, Blackmun traced the “right to privacy” to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which says that no state can “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

However, at the time the amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868, “nobody thought that that [clause] prevented states from protecting unborn children. Nobody thought that,” Snead said. Abortion was outlawed in 30 states at the time, and the remaining states followed common law which also did not allow for abortion, Snead said.

Blackmun, influenced by a “novel” legal theory, disputed that abortion was prohibited under common law, Snead said, calling the argument “completely at odds with the historical record” and saying that it “has been debunked, but nonetheless, constantly repeated.”

The majority opinion in Roe set up a trimester framework for judging state abortion laws. States could not ban or regulate abortion in the first trimester, while they could regulate second trimester abortions but not ban them, according to the ruling. While states could ban third trimester abortions, they had to make exceptions for cases where an “appropriate medical judgment” deemed abortion necessary for the “life or health” of the mother,” Blackmun noted.

This “exception” could be interpreted in a liberal way to allow for many late-term abortions, Snead argued.

“Which means, in effect, that we have the most permissive regime of abortion, almost in the world,” Snead said. The United States is one of just seven countries which allow for legal abortion nationwide after 20 weeks.

Blackmun’s claims in the Roe ruling have not held up over time, Aden argued, including his skepticism over when life begins.

“Roe presumed that abortion would be a decision between a woman and her doctor,” Aden said, but “virtually all” abortions now are performed by doctors who are not a woman’s primary physician.

Roe’s assertion that abortion is safe “relied on eight different authorities, which were not peer-reviewed medical authorities,” Aden said. “In fact, abortion is not safer than childbirth,” he said, especially later in a pregnancy.

If the court declines to overturn the Roe and Casey rulings, however, it might raise questions as to when — if ever — it would reconsider those rulings.

“I would never say this is the last chance to do anything,” Snead said, adding that “no case could be better set up than this one [to repeal Roe.]”

If the court does not repeal Roe, “it won’t be the last opportunity,” Aden said. “This court may, in fact, want to take Roe in bite-sized pieces as it were, and not overturn it in one fell swoop, but in significant incremental decisions.”

For instance, he said the court could simply answer that not all state pre-viability abortion bans are unconstitutional, and send the matter back to the lower courts without having repealed Roe. When the lower courts then consider the lawfulness of various state abortion bans, those cases would probably be appealed to the Supreme Court. Then the court conceivably could repeal Roe in one of those later cases.

In the Dobbs ruling, the court could also set up a new standard recognizing legal abortion, Aden said, adding that this would be unlikely.

“That’s the challenge before the court: Can they find a new standard if they junk the Casey ‘undue burden’ standard? Can they find a new standard that’s understandable, predictable, and applicable across the board?” he asked. “My bet is that they can’t, because they haven’t been able to for the 30 years since Casey, and I don’t think anything will change in Dobbs.”

Snead also said that the possibility of such a novel legal standard would be unlikely.

“To simultaneously uphold the law in Mississippi and retain the court’s authority to be the ultimate arbiter of abortion in America, you’d have to reinvent another false, and untethered-to-the-Constitution, right to abortion,” he said.

“And I don’t think that there is an appetite for that among a majority of the justices.”

Paulsen emphasized that the Dobbs case is the ideal opportunity to overturn Roe.

“There is no way around it. There is no ‘middle solution’ — no ‘compromise’ between right and wrong — that is faithful to the Constitution,” he said. “This is the case. This is the time.”


If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.


About Catholic News Agency 3349 Articles
Catholic News Agency (www.catholicnewsagency.com)

5 Comments

  1. The issue is not whether abortion should be legal, but whether the fetus is a “person” as that term is meant in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and therefore has the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and private property. This is the same issue addressed in general in the Dred Scott case (Scott v. Sandford, 1857), in which Justice Taney effectively nullified original intent and claimed that inalienable rights are, in fact, alienable by the State as it is the State, not God, that creates persons. (Taney conflated the terms “person” and “citizen,” and declared that since citize3nship is a grant from the State, so is personality.)

    The 14th Amendment was intended in part to overturn Scott and reaffirm that inalienable rights are inherent in every human being. In the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873 the U.S. Supreme Court effectively nullified the 14th Amendment by mis-citing Scott and again denying the inalienabilty of natural rights.

    In 1973, the Court declared that it did not know if the fetus is a person, but it is not a person as that term is meant in the 14th Amendment — a nonsensical statement which Justice Byron White described as an exercise of “raw judicial power.” Since the 14th Amendment affirms that all human beings are naturally person, to say that they don’t know if something is a human being necessarily means that they don’t know if it is a person. You cannot base a certainty on an uncertainty.

  2. Roe v Wade will be overturned. Dred Scott v Sandford was overturned (although not by the Supreme Court). One way or another Roe will go down for the same reason every great evil is brought down eventually: those perpetrating it, as Gamaliel put it, find that they are fighting God. (Acts 5:39) They are fighting on the wrong side of a conflict the origin of which is described in Rev 11:19 through Rev 12:17.

    A war broke out in the spiritual realm where incorporeal beings who were loyal to the Truth prevailed over those who joined the rebellion against Him. Unfortunately that didn’t end the war; it was moved to this world where the enemy of the human race became what Christ called its “prince.”

    We are at war. The prince of this world who tempted Christ in the desert with all the wealth, power and worldly glory the world has to offer, still has it all at his disposal. Even so, The Woman of Rev 12 brings “forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron …” Christ wins in the end, eternally. And we will spend eternity happily sharing war stories with the victors, or spend it with enraged, vindictive losers: those who fought for the wrong side or didn’t bother to fight at all. Get on the right side of history and engage in the battle.

    Anyone astute enough to notice how all the evil forces in this world and the lies that sustain them seem to be orchestrated beyond the abilities of merely human intellects also knows why: They aren’t being orchestrated by a merely human intellect.

    It is a real war with real casualties both physical and spiritual. There have been two billion physical fatalities worldwide since Christians consented to render unto Caesar authority over innocent human life that belongs only to God; they did this by not using the political freedom they still possessed by God’s kindness to end “legal” baby murder.

    Using our political freedom to end the brutal murder of innocent children by the billions is not imposing a theocracy on humanity. It is restoring civilized society. (Rule #1 of civilization is that the powerful can’t kill the less powerful simply because doing so serves their purposes.) God only knows how many eternal, spiritual fatalities there have been since the largest, most deceitful, vicious attack on humanity in the history of the world began. Christ spoke the truth when He called our enemy the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning.

    The heartbeats left to you are numbered. Live as though a great war is underway and that what you do matters, because that is the truth. The choices you make the rest of your life will reverberate down through the centuries until the end of time and throughout eternity. Get on the right side of history and engage in the battle. One reason God has allowed this great evil is to let you freely decide whose side you are on. As it was for the angels, it is a decision that will stand for eternity.

  3. After over 60 Million of Gods Creations erased from life.Plus 120 Million parents of said Creations lost in their selfishness and continued listening to The Devils Voice.
    Even though in the deepest recesses of their hearts they destroyed Gods most precious gift.Not on this Earthly sphere.Or the next location they find themselves.Will they ever know the answer to this Great Question: “What If……………”

  4. Not a chance.

    Too much invested in death. And Roberts as leading jurist proclaims, as he has repeatedly said and continues to say, how the Supreme Court ‘looks’ in its decisions, matters.

    ‘Casey’ was also the last, best chance. Instead, we received a puerile, childish monologue on radical individualism on the meaning of life – where the Jurist who wrote the opinion – could not see the bitter, tragic irony in what he was saying on the very issue before him…abortion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*