Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 176

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

29 

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting 

legislatures.9 

Anyway,  today’s  decision,  taken  on  its  own,  is  cata-
strophic enough.  As a matter of constitutional method, the 
majority’s  commitment  to  replicate  in  2022  every  view 
about the meaning of liberty held in 1868 has precious little
to recommend it.  Our law in this constitutional sphere, as 
in  most,  has  for  decades  upon  decades  proceeded  differ-
ently.  It has considered fundamental constitutional princi-
ples, the whole course of the Nation’s history and traditions, 
and the step-by-step evolution of the Court’s precedents.  It 
is disciplined but not static.  It relies on accumulated judg-
ments, not just the sentiments of one long-ago generation 
of men (who themselves believed, and drafted the Constitu-
tion to reflect, that the world progresses).  And by doing so,
it includes those excluded from that olden conversation, ra-
ther than perpetuating its bounds.

As  a  matter  of  constitutional  substance,  the  majority’s
opinion  has  all  the  flaws  its  method  would  suggest.    Be-
cause laws in 1868 deprived women of any control over their
bodies,  the  majority  approves  States  doing  so  today.    Be-
cause  those  laws  prevented  women  from  charting  the
course  of  their  own  lives,  the  majority  says  States  can  do 
the same again.  Because in 1868, the government could tell 
a  pregnant  woman—even  in  the  first  days  of  her  preg-
nancy—that  she  could  do  nothing  but  bear  a  child,  it  can 
once  more impose  that  command.    Today’s  decision  strips
women of agency over what even the majority agrees is a 
—————— 

9 As  this  Court  has  considered  this  case,  some  state  legislators  have 
begun  to  call  for  restrictions  on  certain  forms  of  contraception.    See 
I.  Stevenson,  After  Roe  Decision,  Idaho  Lawmakers  May  Consider
Restricting  Some  Contraception,  Idaho  Statesman  (May  10,  2022),
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/
article261207007.html; T. Weinberg, “Anything’s on the Table”: Missouri 
Legislature May Revisit Contraceptive Limits Post-Roe, Missouri Inde-
pendent (May 20, 2022), https://www.missouriindependent.com/2022/05/
20/anythings-on-the-table-missouri-legislature-may-revisit-contraceptive- 
limits-post-roe/.