Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 58

50  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

Opinion of the Court 

authority to regulate first trimester abortions for the pur-
pose of protecting a woman’s health?  The Court’s only ex-
planation was that mortality rates for abortion at that stage 
were lower than the mortality rates for childbirth.  Id., at 
163.  But  the  Court  did  not  explain  why  mortality  rates
were  the  only  factor  that  a  State  could  legitimately  con-
sider.  Many health and safety regulations aim to avoid ad-
verse health consequences short of death.  And the Court 
did not explain why it departed from the normal rule that
courts  defer  to  the  judgments  of  legislatures  “in  areas
fraught  with  medical  and  scientific  uncertainties.”    Mar-
shall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). 

An even more glaring deficiency was Roe’s failure to jus-
tify the critical distinction it drew between pre- and post-
viability abortions.  Here is the Court’s entire explanation: 

“With respect to the State’s important and legitimate 
interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at vi-
ability.  This is so because the fetus then presumably 
has the capability of meaningful life outside the womb.”
410 U. S., at 163. 

As  Professor  Laurence  Tribe  has  written,  “[c]learly,  this 
mistakes ‘a definition for a syllogism.’ ”  Tribe 4 (quoting Ely 
924).  The definition of a “viable” fetus is one that is capable 
of surviving outside the womb, but why is this the point at 
which the State’s interest becomes compelling?  If, as Roe 
held, a State’s interest in protecting prenatal life is compel-
ling “after viability,” 410 U. S., at 163, why isn’t that inter-
est “equally compelling before viability”?  Webster v. Repro-
ductive Health Services, 492 U. S. 490, 519 (1989) (plurality 
opinion) (quoting Thornburgh, 476 U. S., at 795 (White, J., 
dissenting)).  Roe did not say, and no explanation is appar-
ent. 

This  arbitrary  line  has  not  found  much  support  among
philosophers and ethicists who have attempted to justify a
right to abortion.  Some have argued that a fetus should not