{"id":269034,"date":"2022-06-25T08:00:45","date_gmt":"2022-06-25T02:30:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=269034"},"modified":"2022-07-08T15:54:51","modified_gmt":"2022-07-08T10:24:51","slug":"scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS| United States\u2019 Constitution does not confer any right to abortion; Roe v. Wade overruled after 49 years"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Supreme Court of The United States: <\/strong>In a far-reaching decision concerning an American woman\u2019s right to abortion, the Court held that the Constitution of United States does not confer any right vis-\u00e0-vis abortions. This judgment decisively overrules the landmark SCOTUS ruling of <strong><em>Roe v. Wade<\/em>,<\/strong> <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/6n1Xx1i2\">1973 SCC OnLine US SC 20<\/a>, which granted this constitutional right in the first place and also <strong><em>Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey<\/em><\/strong>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/gz5Y73I2\">1994 SCC OnLine US SC 11<\/a> which upheld <strong><em>Roe<\/em><\/strong>. Furthermore, by this mandate the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><em>\u201c<strong>Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohib\u00aditing abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority<\/strong>\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">In a <strong>separate concurring opinion John Roberts, CJ.,<\/strong> agreed with the majority on the point that the rule of viability as propounded in <strong><em>Roe <\/em><\/strong>and<em> <strong>Casey, <\/strong><\/em>should be discarded as the SCOTUS seriously erred in adopting via\u00adbility as the earliest point at which a State may legislate to advance its substantial interests in the area of abortion. \u201c<strong><em>I agree with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare decisis analysis. That line never made any sense<\/em><\/strong>\u201d. He however, also stated that, \u201c<strong><em>None of this requires the dramatic step of altogether eliminating the abortion right first recognized in Roe\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Facts and Legal Trajectory of the Case<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The re-consideration of <strong><em>Roe v. Wade<\/em><\/strong> came into the picture when Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organisation [respondents] challenged <strong>Mississippi\u2019s Gestational Age Act<\/strong>. The legislation provided that \u201c<em>except in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn hu\u00adman being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The respondents contended before the Federal District Court that Mississippi\u2019s law violated SCOTUS\u2019 prec\u00adedents establishing a constitutional right to abortion, particularly <strong><em>Roe<\/em><\/strong> and <strong><em>Casey<\/em><\/strong>. The District Court granted summary judg\u00adment in favor of the respondents and permanently enjoined enforcement of the Act, reasoning that Mississippi\u2019s 15-week restriction on abortion violates SCOTUS decisions forbidding States to ban abortion pre-viabil\u00adity. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The petitioners finally came before the Supreme Court defending the Act on the grounds that <strong><em>Roe<\/em><\/strong> and <strong><em>Casey<\/em><\/strong> were wrongly decided and that the Act is constitutional because it satisfies rational-basis review.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Majority Observations<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Samuel Alito in which Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, (concurring), Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, JJ., also joined. The majority considered <strong><em>Roe<\/em><\/strong> and <strong><em>Casey<\/em><\/strong> on following points-<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The majority deliberated whether the Constitution, if properly un\u00adderstood, confers a right to obtain an abortion. It was observed that Fourteenth Amendment\u2019s refer\u00adence to \u201cliberty\u201d protects a particular right. However, the Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion, but several con\u00adstitutional provisions have been offered as potential homes for an im\u00adplicit constitutional right. The Court pointed out that \u201c<strong><em>The Bench deciding Casey grounded its decision solely on the theory that the right to obtain an abortion is part of the \u201cliberty\u201d protected by the Fourteenth Amend\u00adment\u2019s Due Process Clause, but that theory is squarely foreclosed by the Court\u2019s precedents, which es\u00adtablish that a State\u2019s regulation of abortion is not a sex-based classifi\u00adcation and is thus not subject to the heightened scrutiny that applies to such classifications<\/em><\/strong>\u201d.<\/li>\n<li>The majority based its next observations on the <strong>\u201c<em>History and Traditions of the Nation<\/em>\u201d.<\/strong> It was pointed out that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation\u2019s history and tradi\u00adtion and the Due Process Clause pro\u00adtects two categories of substantive rights &#8211; rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution and rights deemed fundamental but are not mentioned anywhere in the Consti\u00adtution. \u201c<strong><em>Historical inquiries are essential whenever the Court is asked to recognize a new component of the \u201cliberty\u201d interest protected by the Due Process Clause. In interpreting what is meant by \u201cliberty,\u201d the Court must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what the Fourteenth Amendment protects with the Court\u2019s own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy\u201d. <\/em><\/strong>Citing this reason the majority expressed its reluctance recognize rights that are not men\u00adtioned in the Constitution. \u201c<strong><em>Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential compo\u00adnents of the Nation\u2019s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abor\u00adtion. Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion<\/em><\/strong>\u201d.<\/li>\n<li>Furthermore the Court stated that Roe\u2019s analysis of historical basis of right to abortion was faulty. It was pointed out that American law followed the common law until a flurry of statutory restrictions in the 1800s ex\u00adpanded criminal liability for abortions. By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abor\u00adtion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. Thus Roe either ignored or misstated this part of history. The Court observed that instead of seriously pursuing the argument that the abortion right itself has deep roots in history, the supporters of <em>Roe <\/em>and <em>Casey <\/em>contend that the abortion right is an integral part of a broader entrenched right- right to privacy. \u201c<strong><em>But the people of the various States may evaluate those inter\u00adests differently. The Nation\u2019s historical understanding of ordered lib\u00aderty does not prevent the people\u2019s elected representatives from decid\u00ading how abortion should be regulated<\/em><\/strong>\u201d.<\/li>\n<li>Finally the majority applied the principles of <em>stare decicis <\/em>to analyse whether a right to obtain an abor\u00adtion is part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents. The Court observed that while deciding <em>Roe<\/em>, none of the decisions cited involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. thus, those cases do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and the Court\u2019s conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way. It was pointed out that doctrine of precedents \u201c<strong><em>restrains judicial hubris by respecting the judgment of those who grappled with important questions in the past. But stare decisis is not an inexorable command<\/em><\/strong>\u201d.<\/li>\n<li>Terming <strong><em>Roe<\/em><\/strong> as <em>egregiously wrong and in collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided<\/em>, the Court stated that <strong><em>Roe<\/em><\/strong> 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. It was further stated that the scheme <em>Roe <\/em>produced <em>looked <\/em>like legislation, and the Court provided the sort of explanation that might be expected from a legislative body. Another glaring defi\u00adciency was <strong><em>Roe<\/em><em>\u2019s <\/em><\/strong>failure to justify the critical distinction it drew be\u00adtween pre- and post-viability abortions.<\/li>\n<li>The argument that overruling <strong><em>Roe<\/em><\/strong> and <strong><em>Casey<\/em><\/strong> would threaten the protection of other rights under the Due Process Clause was also rejected by the Court stating that. This decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion only. Nothing in this opinion should cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Concurring Opinion of John Roberts, CJ., <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Taking a middle ground approach, Roberts, CJ., stated that overruling the subsidiary rule is sufficient to resolve this case in Mississippi\u2019s favour. He also pointed out that SCOTUS<strong><em>\u2019 <\/em><\/strong>abortion precedents describe the right as a woman\u2019s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further not all the way to viability.\u00a0 He also stated that. \u201c<strong><em>I am not sure, that a ban on terminat\u00ading a pregnancy from the moment of conception must be treated the same under the Constitution as a ban after fif\u00adteen weeks. I would decide the question we granted review to answer\u2014whether the previously recognized abortion right bars all abortion restrictions prior to viability, such that a ban on abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy is necessarily unlawful. The answer to that question is no<\/em><\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n<p><strong><em>\u201cThe Court\u2019s decision to overrule Roe and Casey is a serious jolt to the legal system\u2014regardless of how you view those cases. A narrower decision rejecting the misguided viability line would be markedly less unsettling, and nothing more is needed to decide this case\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Concurring Opinions of Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh JJ., <\/strong><\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li><strong>Justice Clarence Thomas<\/strong>\u2019 concurring opinion emphasised on <em>more funda\u00admental reason why there is no abortion guarantee lurking in the Due Process Clause. <\/em>He stated that \u201csubstantive due process\u201d is an oxymoron that \u201clacks any basis in the Constitution.\u201d He stated that the Court should reconsider all of SCOTUS\u2019 substantive due process precedents, includ\u00ading <strong><em>Griswold <\/em> <em>Connecticut <\/em><\/strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/Xt256fc2\">1965 SCC OnLine US SC 124<\/a>; <strong><em>Lawrence v. Texas, <\/em><\/strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/O6W3CD2U\">2003 SCC OnLine US SC 73<\/a> and <strong><em>Obergefell v. Hodges, <\/em><\/strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/Xk5kEBfI\">2015 SCC OnLine US SC 6<\/a> &#8211; <strong><em>\u201cBecause any sub\u00adstantive due process decision is \u201cdemonstrably erroneous, we have a duty to \u201ccorrect the error\u201d established in those precedents.<\/em><\/strong> <em>After overruling these demonstra\u00adbly erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myr\u00adiad rights that our substantive due process cases have gen\u00aderated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court\u2019s substantive due process cases are \u201cprivileges or immunities of citizens of the United States\u201d protected by the Fourteenth Amendment\u201d.<\/em><\/li>\n<li><strong>Justice Brett Kavanugh<\/strong> stated that the Constitution does not take sides on the issue of abortion. The text of the Constitution does not refer to or encompass abortion. The Constitution protects un\u00adenumerated rights that are deeply rooted in this Nation\u2019s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. But a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in Amer\u00adican history and tradition.<strong> \u201c<\/strong><strong><em>The Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected repre\u00adsentatives to resolve through the democratic process in the States or Congress\u2014like the numerous other difficult ques\u00adtions of American social and economic policy that the Con\u00adstitution does not address\u201d. <\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>The Dissent<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, <\/strong>termed the decision to be catastrophic. In a scathing dissent, the Judges stated that the majority has overruled <em>Roe <\/em>and <em>Casey <\/em>out of despise and has substituted a rule by judges for the rule of law. Some of their salient observations are as follows-<\/p>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li>They observed that for close to 50 years <strong><em>Roe<\/em><\/strong> and later <strong><em>Casey <\/em><\/strong>protected the liberty and equality of women. \u201c<strong><em>Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions<\/em><\/strong>\u201d. <strong><em>Roe<\/em><\/strong> and <strong><em>Casey<\/em><\/strong> well understood the difficulty and divisive\u00adness of the abortion issue and the Court was aware that Americans hold profoundly different views about the morality of terminating a pregnancy, even in its earliest stage. So the Court struck a balance, and held that the State could prohibit abortions after fetal viability, so long as the ban contained exceptions to safeguard a woman\u2019s life or health. It held that even before viability, the State could regulate the abortion procedure in multiple and meaningful ways. But until the viability line was crossed, the Court held, <em>a State could not impose a \u201csubstantial obstacle\u201d on a woman\u2019s \u201cright to elect the procedure\u201d as she (not the gov\u00adernment) thought proper, in light of all the circumstances and complexities of her own life<\/em>.<\/li>\n<li>The dissenting Judges observed that the majority in the deciding the present issue discarded that balance. <strong>\u201c<em>It says that from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs<\/em><\/strong>\u201d. The Judges pointed out that after today\u2019s ruling, some States may compel women to carry to term a fetus with severe physical anomalies\u2014for example, one afflicted with Tay-Sachs disease, sure to die. The Judges expressed apprehension that a State can impose criminal penalties on abortion providers, including lengthy prison sentences. \u201c<strong><em>But some States will not stop there. Perhaps, in the wake of today\u2019s decision, a state law will criminalize the woman\u2019s conduct too, incarcerating or fining her for daring to seek or obtain an abortion\u201d<\/em><\/strong>. The dissenting Judges pointed out that the majority decision would sound a death knell for women who are not financially strong. It was observed that the majority decision has one clear result i.e. the curtailment of women\u2019s rights and of their status as free and equal citizens.<\/li>\n<li>In very strong words, the Judges pointed that the lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not \u201cdeeply rooted in history\u201d however, the same could be said, of most of the rights the majority decision claimed that it is not tampering. \u201c<strong><em>Either the major\u00adity does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid\u00ad19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority\u2019s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other<\/em><\/strong>\u201d.<\/li>\n<li>Questioning the majority\u2019s historical approach, the dissenting Judges pointed out that those responsible for the original Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment, did not perceive women as equals, and did not recognize women\u2019s rights. <strong><em>\u201cThe majority\u2019s core legal postulate, then, is that we in the 21st century must read the Fourteenth Amendment just as its ratifiers did\u201d<\/em><\/strong>. The Judges also pointed that the Framers of the Constitution (both in 1788 and 1868) understood that the world changes, so they did not define rights by refer\u00adence to the specific practices existing at the time. Instead, the Framers defined rights in general terms, to permit fu\u00adture evolution in their scope and meaning. <strong><em>\u201cThe Constitution does not freeze for all time the original view of what those rights guarantee, or how they apply<\/em><\/strong>\u201d.<\/li>\n<li>Regarding the \u201cneutrality\u201d of the Constitution, the Judges noted that, \u201c<strong><em>When it comes to rights, the Court does not act \u201cneutrally\u201d when it leaves everything up to the States. Rather, the Court acts neutrally when it protects the right against all comers\u201d.<\/em><\/strong> The Judges also questioned Justice Clarence Thomas\u2019s statement that the present decision would not affect precedents in non-abortion cases when in the same vein he urged the Court to reconsider decisions like<\/li>\n<li>The Judges also noted that the majority did not successfully express its rationale regarding the issue of <em>stare decisis<\/em>. \u201c<strong><em>The majority barely mentions any legal or factual changes that have occurred since Roe and Casey. It sug\u00adgests that the two decisions are hard for courts to imple\u00adment, but cannot prove its case. In the end, the majority says, all it must say to override stare decisis is one thing: that it believes Roe and Casey \u201cegregiously wrong.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">Finally the dissenting Judges simply observed that in overruling <strong><em>Roe<\/em><\/strong> and <strong><em>Casey<\/em><\/strong>, the SCOTUS betrayed its guiding principles. <em>\u201c<strong>With sorrow\u2014for this Court, but more, for the many mil\u00adlions of American women who have today lost a fundamen\u00adtal constitutional protection\u2014we dissent<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n<h4 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #800000;\"><strong>Decision<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\">With their afore-stated observations the majority concluded that Mississippi\u2019s Gestational Age Act is supported by the Mississippi Legislature\u2019s specific findings, which include the State\u2019s asserted in\u00adterest in \u201c<em>protecting the life of the unborn<\/em>\u201d. These legitimate interests provide a rational basis for the Gestational Age Act.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>[Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organisation, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/4HhaN8ZM\">2022 SCC OnLine US SC 9<\/a><\/strong><strong>, decided on 24-06-2022<\/strong><strong>]<\/strong><\/p>\n<hr \/>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"color: #0000ff;\"><strong>Report by Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of The United States: In a far-reaching decision concerning an American woman\u2019s right to abortion, the Court held that the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":32691,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[8281,3260,3268,9971,49863,23734,49466,30014,3013,49862,46908],"class_list":["post-269034","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-abortion","tag-Constitution","tag-Fundamental_Rights","tag-human-rights","tag-right-to-abortion","tag-right-to-liberty","tag-roe-v-wade","tag-scotus","tag-Stare_Decisis","tag-us-constitution","tag-womens-rights"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>SCOTUS| United States\u2019 Constitution does not confer any right to abortion; Roe v. Wade overruled after 49 years | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SCOTUS| United States\u2019 Constitution does not confer any right to abortion; Roe v. Wade overruled after 49 years\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court of The United States: In a far-reaching decision concerning an American woman\u2019s right to abortion, the Court held that the\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-06-25T02:30:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-07-08T10:24:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/\",\"name\":\"SCOTUS| United States\u2019 Constitution does not confer any right to abortion; Roe v. Wade overruled after 49 years | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-06-25T02:30:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-07-08T10:24:51+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887,\"caption\":\"Supreme Court of The United States\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SCOTUS| United States\u2019 Constitution does not confer any right to abortion; Roe v. Wade overruled after 49 years\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SCOTUS| United States\u2019 Constitution does not confer any right to abortion; Roe v. Wade overruled after 49 years | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SCOTUS| United States\u2019 Constitution does not confer any right to abortion; Roe v. Wade overruled after 49 years","og_description":"Supreme Court of The United States: In a far-reaching decision concerning an American woman\u2019s right to abortion, the Court held that the","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-06-25T02:30:45+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-07-08T10:24:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/","name":"SCOTUS| United States\u2019 Constitution does not confer any right to abortion; Roe v. Wade overruled after 49 years | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","datePublished":"2022-06-25T02:30:45+00:00","dateModified":"2022-07-08T10:24:51+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","width":1330,"height":887,"caption":"Supreme Court of The United States"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/25\/scotus-united-states-supreme-court-right-to-abortion-not-constitutional-right-roe-wade-overruled-legal-updates-research-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SCOTUS| United States\u2019 Constitution does not confer any right to abortion; Roe v. Wade overruled after 49 years"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":316204,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/06\/french-senate-votes-favour-right-to-abortion-french-constitution-right-france-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":269034,"position":0},"title":"Right to Abortion | French Senate votes in favour of enshrining Freedom of Women to Voluntarily Terminate Pregnancy in the French Constitution","author":"Sucheta","date":"March 6, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The aim to enshrine the right to abortion in the French Constitution which gained impetus after SCOTUS overruled Roe v. Wade in 2022 was finally fulfilled with 780 MPs favouring the inclusion.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Foreign Legislation&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Foreign Legislation","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/legislationupdates\/foreign\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Right to Abortion French Senate","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Right-to-Abortion-French-Senate.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Right-to-Abortion-French-Senate.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Right-to-Abortion-French-Senate.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Right-to-Abortion-French-Senate.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":269043,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/06\/26\/right-to-abortion-not-constituional-right-dissent-opinion-supreme-court-united-states-women-body-autonomy-roe-wade-casey-dobby-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":269034,"position":1},"title":"\u201cWith sorrow\u2014for this Court, but more, for the many mil\u00adlions of American women\u2026we dissent.\u201d Read SCOTUS dissent on Right to Abortion case\u00a0","author":"Editor","date":"June 26, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAfter today, young women will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":281554,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/13\/towards-a-rights-based-approach-to-abortion\/","url_meta":{"origin":269034,"position":2},"title":"Towards a Rights-Based Approach to Abortion","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Erina Chatterjee*","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Approach to Abortion","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/MicrosoftTeams-image-75.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":267040,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/18\/an-analysis-of-the-evolving-law-of-abortions-in-light-of-roe-v-wade-judgment\/","url_meta":{"origin":269034,"position":3},"title":"An Analysis of the Evolving Law of Abortions in Light of Roe v. Wade Judgment","author":"Editor","date":"May 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Wasim Beg* and Shaaivi Shukla**","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Roe.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Roe.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Roe.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Roe.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/Roe.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":269462,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/07\/02\/legal-roundup-scconline-weekly-rewind-modi-gujarat-riots-abortion-right-maintenance-rti-right-to-sanitation-supreme-court-high-courts-ncdrc-scotus-legal-updates-research-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":269034,"position":4},"title":"SCC Online Weekly Rewind Ep. 67: Abortion Right in USA, Clean Chit to PM Modi, Unmarried Daughter&#8217;s Right to Maintenance and more","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"July 2, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"In this Episode, Prachi Bhardwaj breaks down some important legal updates from around the World, covering SCOTUS's decision on American women's right to abortion, Supreme Court of India's dismissal of plea challenging clean chit to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and more.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;SCC Times Newsflash&quot;","block_context":{"text":"SCC Times Newsflash","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/watch-now-2\/scc-times-newsflash\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-9.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-9.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-9.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-9.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":285714,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/28\/us-district-court-texas-anti-abortion-law-extraterritorial-operation-regulate-abortions-outside-state-of-texas-legal-news-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":269034,"position":5},"title":"US District Court | Texas\u2019 anti-abortion laws do not have extra-territorial operation and cannot regulate abortions that take place outside the State of Texas","author":"Sucheta","date":"February 28, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"While deliberating over the case filed by non-profit abortion funds operating in Texas, the US District Court held that Texas\u2019 Attorney General cannot enforce Texan anti-abortion laws outside the State of Texas","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"United States District Court, Texas","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-569.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-569.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-569.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-569.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269034","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=269034"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/269034\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32691"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=269034"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=269034"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=269034"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}