Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 133.0

10  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

1954 have reaffirmed Plessy and upheld racially segregated
schools simply because of that intervening 1924 precedent? 
Surely the answer is no. 

In sum, I agree with the Court’s application today of the
principles of stare decisis and its conclusion that Roe should 
be overruled. 

III 
After  today’s  decision,  the  nine  Members  of  this  Court 
will no longer decide the basic legality of pre-viability abor-
tion  for  all 330  million  Americans.    That  issue  will  be  re-
solved by the people and their representatives in the demo-
cratic process in the States or Congress.  But  the parties’ 
arguments  have  raised  other  related  questions,  and  I  ad-
dress some of them here. 

First is the question of how this decision will affect other 
precedents involving issues such as contraception and mar-
riage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecti-
cut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 
(1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Oberge-
fell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015).  I emphasize what the
Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the over-
ruling  of  those  precedents,  and  does  not  threaten  or  cast 
doubt on those precedents. 

Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related le-
gal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially 
difficult  as  a  constitutional  matter.  For  example,  may  a
State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another
State to obtain an abortion?  In my view, the answer is no
based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.  May
a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an
abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? 
In  my  view,  the  answer  is  no  based  on  the  Due  Process 
Clause  or  the  Ex  Post  Facto  Clause.    Cf.  Bouie  v.  City  of 
Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964).

Other abortion-related legal questions may emerge in the