Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 38

30  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

Opinion of the Court 

but even Roe and Casey did not question the good faith of 
abortion  opponents.    See,  e.g.,  Casey,  505  U. S.,  at  850 
(“Men and women of good conscience can disagree . . . about 
the profound moral and spiritual implications of terminat-
ing a pregnancy even in its earliest stage”).  And we see no 
reason to discount the significance of the state laws in ques-
tion  based  on  these  amici’s  suggestions  about  legislative
motive.41 

C 
1 
Instead of seriously pressing the argument that the abor-
tion right itself has deep roots, supporters of Roe and Casey
contend  that  the  abortion  right  is  an  integral  part  of  a 
broader entrenched right.  Roe termed this a right to pri-
vacy, 410 U. S., at 154, and Casey described it as the free-
dom to make “intimate and personal choices” that are “cen-
tral to personal dignity and autonomy,” 505 U. S., at 851. 
Casey elaborated: “At the heart of liberty is the right to de-
fine one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the uni-
verse, and of the mystery of human life.”  Ibid. 

The Court did not claim that this broadly framed right is
absolute, and no such claim would be plausible.  While in-
dividuals are certainly free to  think and to  say what  they 

—————— 

41 Other amicus briefs present arguments about the motives of propo-
nents of liberal access to abortion.  They note that some such supporters 
have  been  motivated  by  a  desire  to  suppress  the  size  of  the  African-
American population.  See Brief for African-American Organization et al. 
as Amici Curiae 14–21; see also Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. and 
Ky., Inc., 587 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., 
at  1–4).    And  it  is  beyond  dispute  that  Roe  has  had  that  demographic 
effect.  A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are Black. 
See, e.g., Dept. of Health and Human Servs., Centers for Disease Control 
and Prevention (CDC), K. Kortsmit et al., Abortion Surveillance—United
States, 2019, 70 Morbidity and Mortality Report, Surveillance Summar-
ies, p. 20 (Nov. 26, 2021) (Table 6).  For our part, we do not question the 
motives of either those who have supported or those who have opposed
laws restricting abortions.