Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 127.0

4  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

does  not  require  them  to  do  so.”  Planned  Parenthood  of 
Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 979 (1992) (opin-
ion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).
Today’s decision therefore does not prevent the numerous 
States that readily allow abortion from continuing to read-
ily allow abortion.  That includes, if they choose, the amici 
States  supporting  the  plaintiff  in  this  Court:  New  York,
California,  Illinois,  Maine,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island, 
Vermont,  Connecticut,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Dela-
ware,  Maryland,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Minnesota,  New
Mexico,  Colorado,  Nevada,  Oregon,  Washington,  and  Ha-
waii.  By  contrast,  other  States  may  maintain  laws  that
more  strictly  limit  abortion.    After  today’s  decision,  all  of 
the States may evaluate the competing interests and decide
how to address this consequential issue.2 

In  arguing  for  a  constitutional  right  to  abortion  that
would override the people’s choices in the democratic pro-
cess,  the  plaintiff  Jackson  Women’s  Health  Organization 
and  its  amici  emphasize  that  the  Constitution  does  not
freeze  the American  people’s  rights  as  of  1791  or  1868.  I 
fully agree.  To begin, I agree that constitutional rights ap-
ply  to  situations  that  were  unforeseen  in  1791  or  1868—
such  as  applying  the  First  Amendment  to  the  Internet  or 
the Fourth Amendment to cars.  Moreover, the Constitution 
authorizes  the  creation  of  new  rights—state  and  federal,
statutory and constitutional.  But when it comes to creating
new rights, the Constitution directs the people to the vari-
ous processes of democratic self-government contemplated 
by the Constitution—state legislation, state constitutional 
amendments, federal legislation, and federal constitutional 

—————— 

2 In his dissent in Roe, Justice Rehnquist indicated that an exception 
to  a  State’s  restriction  on  abortion  would  be  constitutionally  required 
when an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother.  See Roe v. 
Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 173 (1973).  Abortion statutes traditionally and cur-
rently provide for an exception when an abortion is necessary to protect 
the life of the mother.  Some statutes also provide other exceptions.