Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 143

8  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment 

omitted)); id., at 473–474 (Roe “did not declare an unquali-
fied  constitutional  right  to  an  abortion,”  but  instead  pro-
tected  “the  woman  from  unduly  burdensome  interference
with her freedom to decide whether to terminate her preg-
nancy”  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted));  Webster,  492 
U. S., at 520 (plurality opinion) (Roe protects “the claims of 
a woman to decide for herself whether or not to abort a fetus 
she [is] carrying”); Gonzales, 550 U. S., at 146 (a State may
not “prohibit any woman from making the ultimate decision 
to terminate her pregnancy”).  If that is the basis for Roe, 
Roe’s viability line should be scrutinized from the same per-
spective.  And  there  is  nothing  inherent  in  the  right  to 
choose  that  requires  it  to  extend  to  viability  or  any  other 
point, so long as a real choice is provided.  See Webster, 492 
U. S., at 519 (plurality opinion) (finding no reason “why the 
State’s  interest  in  protecting  potential  human  life  should 
come into existence only at the point of viability”).

To be sure, in reaffirming the right to an abortion, Casey
termed the viability rule Roe’s “central holding.”  505 U. S., 
at 860.  Other cases of ours have repeated that language. 
See, e.g., Gonzales, 550 U. S., at 145–146.  But simply de-
claring  it  does  not  make  it  so.    The  question  in  Roe  was 
whether  there  was  any  right  to  abortion  in  the  Constitu-
tion.  See  Brief  for  Appellants  and  Brief  for  Appellees,  in 
Roe v. Wade, O. T. 1971, No. 70–18.  How far the right ex-
tended  was  a  concern  that  was  separate  and  subsidiary, 
and—not surprisingly—entirely unbriefed.

The Court in Roe just chose to address both issues in one
opinion: It first recognized a right to “choose to terminate
[a]  pregnancy”  under  the  Constitution,  see  410  U. S.,  at 
129–159,  and  then,  having  done  so,  explained  that  a  line 
should be drawn at viability such that a State could not pro-
scribe abortion before that period, see id., at 163.  The via-
bility  line  is  a  separate  rule  fleshing  out  the  metes  and 
bounds of Roe’s core holding.  Applying principles of stare 
decisis, I would excise that additional rule—and only that