Roe v. Wade on the Brink of Being Removed

The Supreme Court will hear legal arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health on Wednesday. This could be the most significant challenge to the 1973 Roe v. Wade historic ruling that restricted government limits on abortions.

Here are some important facts regarding the case and what to anticipate.

What’s going on?

Mississippi will argue the Supreme Court must enable them, as well as other states, to prohibit abortion beyond 15 weeks of pregnancy. It’s asking the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court judgment that prevented its 15-week ban on abortion from going into effect.

Mississippi’s law, which was passed in 2018, has been challenged in court by Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an abortion provider that believes the bill is illegal and should be indefinitely prohibited because it contradicts past court decisions on the subject.

The Supreme Court’s nine justices will be in attendance and have the opportunity to question all parties about their arguments. Scott Stewart, the state’s solicitor general, will be arguing on behalf of the statute for Mississippi.

Attorney Julie Rikelman and United States Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar will appear on either side.

Mississippi is asking the Supreme Court to invalidate Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, two historic abortion judgments that barred individual states from prohibiting abortions at some stages of pregnancy.

As a result, it has the potential to drastically alter the environment of abortion access, as many red states are ready to immediately implement laws restricting access even more.

Several states, for instance, have implemented “trigger legislation” that would ban abortion instantly if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The fight lies ahead

Nevertheless, blue and purple states are likely to encounter ongoing political pushback as they try to keep less stringent rules in place. An anti-abortion triumph in Dobbs would restore the subject to state-level battlegrounds, according to anti-abortion activists.

Whichever the conclusion, neither side of the discussion is likely to give up battling for their purpose. Outcomes in either manner, on the other hand, would be devastating to organizations that have spent decades trying to have their vision passed into law.

With liberals already contemplating codifying Roe at the national level and filling the judiciary, the political ramifications of an anti-abortion victory may be cataclysmic.

Roe and Casey are important precedents to follow. The Jackson Women’s Medical Association has consistently emphasized Roe and Casey’s long-standing precedence.

Mississippi’s law, it claims, violates Casey’s rule that states edicts must not place an “undue hardship” on abortions performed before maturity. Upholding Mississippi’s legislation would be contrary to the principle of stare decisis, which states courts should uphold earlier rulings.

“At the heart of those judgments [Roe and Casey] is every individual’s choice to decide whether or not to carry a pre-viability pregnancy to term,” the brief states.

It further maintains there is no unique reason to expect a different result now. “Mississippi ignores the personal sovereignty and bodily integrity concerns that underlie due process for the right to choose whether or not to maintain a pregnancy.”