Abortion is always allowed to protect the life of the mother. Roe ruled that state’s may not place restrictions on elective abortion prior to fetal viability, 22 to 24 weeks. 43 states applied this guideline. 8 states placed no restrictions on elective abortion. In 2019 there were an estimated 6,300 elective abortions past viability in the US, i.e. not due to the health of the mother or the fetus. That is a tiny 0.007% of all abortions.
Only six countries in the world allow unrestricted access to elective abortion. 25% of women of child bearing age lack easy access to contraception in the US. That needs to be addressed.
In a previous ruling, Casey in 1992, a plurality of the justices (conservative and liberal) reasoned that as a matter of law Roe was wrongly decided. Yet, in Casey, the court chose to leave Roe in place. The three claiming “stare decisis,” to leave the Roe precedent in place, appear to have been concerned about the impact of a change on society. They were hopeful that Casey would settle the matter. It didn't.
“When Casey revisited Roe almost 20 years later, it reaffirmed Roe’s central holding, but pointedly refrained from endorsing most of its reasoning. The Court abandoned any reliance on a privacy right and instead grounded the abortion right entirely on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.” - from the Dobb’s ruling.
The due process clause:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
For the constitution and its precedents to provide a right to abortion via the 14th amendment then that right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." However, when the fourteenth amendment was adopted 3/4 of the States made abortion a crime in ALL stages of pregnancy. So, claiming the court had the obligation to rule based on this is simply wrong as a matter of law. Common law prior to the 14th amendment also forbade abortion after the “quickening,” i.e. after evidence of pregnancy was clear.
Overturning Roe does not overturn the legal right to abortion in the US. It simply requires the states, specifically through the democratic process, to legislate the right. When put to a vote I strongly believe that like in Europe and other western nations abortion within reasonable limits will remain legal in most states.
2018 Statistics
The statistical analysis is from Wm. Robert Johnston Ph.D. (Physics), M.S. (Physics), B.A. (Astronomy). His sources are all credible and include the CDC, US State Agencies, Guttmacher Institute, and international, the Global Life Campaign.
Dobb’s Highlights
Direct quotes from the court's summary of its ruling.
First, the Court reviews the standard that the Court’s cases have used to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty” protects a particular right.
Next, the Court examines whether the right to obtain an abortion is rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition and whether it is an essential component of “ordered liberty.”
Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion.
Indeed, abortion had long been a crime in every single State. At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages.
By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. This consensus endured until the day Roe was decided. Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis.
Supporters of Roe and Casey contend that the abortion right is an integral part of a broader entrenched right. Roe termed this a right to privacy, and Casey Described it as the freedom to make “intimate and personal choices” that are “central to personal dignity and autonomy.” … … The Court concludes the right to obtain an abortion cannot be justified as a component of such a right.
Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion is different because it destroys what Roe termed “potential life” and what the law challenged in this case calls an “unborn human being.” None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. Accordingly, and the Court’s conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way.
The doctrine of stare decisis does not counsel continued acceptance of Roe and Casey. Stare decisis plays an important role and protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision. It “reduces incentives for challenging settled precedents, saving parties and courts the expense of endless relitigation.”
The Court’s cases have identified factors that should be considered in deciding when a precedent should be overruled.
The nature of the Court’s error. Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided. Casey per petuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side. Those on the losing side—those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life—could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views. The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe. Pp. 43–45
(2)
The quality of the reasoning. Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, Roe imposed on the entire country a detailed set of rules for pregnancy divided into trimesters much like those that one might expect to find in a statute or regulation. See 410 U. S., at 163–164. Roe’s failure even to note the overwhelming consensus of state laws in effect in 1868 is striking, and what it said about the common law was simply wrong.
When Casey revisited Roe almost 20 years later, it reaffirmed Roe’s central holding, but pointedly refrained from endorsing most of its reasoning. The Court abandoned any reliance on a privacy right and instead grounded the abortion right entirely on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.