Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 83.0

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

75 

Opinion of the Court 

Not only is the new rule proposed by the concurrence in-
consistent with Casey’s unambiguous “language,” post, at 8, 
it  is  also  contrary  to  the  judgment  in  that  case  and  later
abortion  cases.  In  Casey,  the  Court  held  that  Pennsylva-
nia’s spousal-notification provision was facially unconstitu-
tional,  not  just  that  it  was  unconstitutional  as  applied  to
abortions sought prior to the time when a woman has had 
a reasonable opportunity to choose.  See 505 U. S., at 887– 
898.  The same is true of Whole Women’s Health, which held 
that  certain  rules  that  required  physicians  performing
abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital 
were facially unconstitutional because they placed “a sub-
stantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previabil-
ity abortion.”  579 U. S., at 591 (emphasis added). 

For all these reasons, stare decisis cannot justify the new 
“reasonable  opportunity”  rule  propounded  by  the  concur-
rence.  If that rule is to become the law of the land, it must 
stand on its own, but the concurrence makes no attempt to
show  that  this  rule  represents  a  correct  interpretation  of 
the Constitution.  The concurrence does not claim that the 
right  to a  reasonable opportunity  to obtain an abortion is 
“ ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ ” and 
“ ‘implicit  in  the  concept  of  ordered  liberty.’ ”    Glucksberg, 
521 U. S., at 720–721.  Nor does it propound any other the-
ory that could show that the Constitution supports its new
rule.  And if the Constitution protects a woman’s right to
obtain an abortion, the opinion does not explain why that 
right should end after the point at which all  “reasonable” 
women  will  have  decided  whether  to  seek  an  abortion. 
While the concurrence is moved by a desire for judicial min-
imalism, “we cannot embrace a narrow ground of decision
simply because it is narrow; it must also be right.”  Citizens 
United, 558 U. S., at 375 (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring).  For 
the reasons that we have explained, the concurrence’s ap-
proach is not.