Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 197.0

50  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting 

majority ignores, as explained above, that some women de-
cide  to  have  an  abortion  because  their  circumstances 
change during a pregnancy.  See supra, at 49.  Human bod-
ies care little for hopes and plans.  Events can occur after 
conception,  from  unexpected  medical  risks  to  changes  in
family  circumstances,  which  profoundly  alter  what  it 
means to carry a pregnancy to term.  In all these situations, 
women have expected that they will get to decide, perhaps
in consultation with their families or doctors but free from 
state  interference,  whether  to  continue  a  pregnancy.  For 
those who will now have to undergo that pregnancy, the loss
of Roe and Casey could be disastrous. 

That is especially so for women without money.  When we 
“count[ ] the cost of [Roe’s] repudiation” on women who once 
relied on that decision, it is not hard to see where the great-
est burden will fall.  Casey, 505 U. S., at 855.  In States that 
bar abortion, women of means will still be able to travel to 
obtain  the  services  they  need.25    It  is  women  who  cannot 
afford to do so who will suffer most.  These are the women 
most likely to seek abortion care in the first place.  Women 
living below the federal poverty line experience unintended 
pregnancies at rates five times higher than higher income 
women do, and nearly half of women who seek abortion care 
live in households below the poverty line.  See Brief for 547 
Deans  7;  Brief  for  Abortion  Funds  and  Practical  Support 
Organizations as Amici Curiae 8 (Brief for Abortion Funds). 

—————— 

25 This statement of course assumes that States are not successful in 
preventing interstate travel to obtain an abortion.  See supra, at 3, 36– 
37.  Even assuming that is so, increased out-of-state demand will lead to
longer  wait  times  and  decreased  availability  of  service  in  States  still 
providing abortions.  See Brief for State of California et al. as Amici Cu-
riae 25–27.  This is what happened in Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New 
Mexico,  and  Nevada  last  fall  after  Texas  effectively  banned  abortions 
past six weeks of gestation.  See United States v. Texas, 595 U. S. ___, 
___  (2021)  (SOTOMAYOR,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and  dissenting  in  part) 
(slip op., at 6).