Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

28  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

Opinion of the Court 

late  18th  and  early  19th  century  did  not  criminalize  pre-
quickening  abortions  does  not  mean  that  anyone  thought 
the States lacked the authority to do so.  When legislatures 
began to exercise that authority as the century wore on, no
one, as far as we are aware, argued that the laws they en-
acted violated a fundamental right.  That is not surprising
since  common-law  authorities  had  repeatedly  condemned 
abortion and described it as an “unlawful” act without re-
gard to whether it occurred before or after quickening.  See 
supra, at 16–21. 

Another  amicus  brief  relied  upon  by  respondents  (see
Brief for Respondents 21) tries to dismiss the significance
of the state criminal statutes that were in effect when the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  was  adopted  by  suggesting  that 
they  were  enacted  for  illegitimate  reasons.  According  to
this account, which is based almost entirely on statements
made  by  one  prominent  proponent  of  the  statutes,  im-
portant motives for the laws were the fear that Catholic im-
migrants  were  having  more  babies  than  Protestants  and 
that  the  availability  of  abortion  was  leading  White
Protestant women to “shir[k their] maternal duties.”  Brief 
for American Historical Association et al. as Amici Curiae 
20. 

Resort to this argument is a testament to the lack of any
real historical support for the right that Roe and Casey rec-
ognized.  This Court has long disfavored arguments based 
on alleged legislative motives.  See, e.g., Erie v. Pap’s A. M., 
529 U. S. 277, 292 (2000) (plurality opinion); Turner Broad-
casting  System,  Inc.  v.  FCC,  512  U. S.  622,  652  (1994); 
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U. S. 367, 383 (1968); Arizona 
v.  California,  283  U. S.  423,  455  (1931)  (collecting  cases). 
The Court has recognized that inquiries into legislative mo-
tives “are a hazardous matter.”  O’Brien, 391 U. S., at 383. 
Even when an argument about legislative motive is backed 
by statements made by legislators who voted for a law, we