Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 155.0

8  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting 

members of her family.  Ibid.  A State could not, “by adopt-
ing one theory of life,” override all “rights of the pregnant 
woman.”  Id., at 162. 

At the same time, though, the Court recognized “valid in-
terest[s]” of the State “in regulating the abortion decision.” 
Id., at 153.  The Court noted in particular “important inter-
ests”  in  “protecting  potential  life,”  “maintaining  medical
standards,” and “safeguarding [the] health” of the woman. 
Id., at 154.  No “absolut[ist]” account of the woman’s right 
could wipe away those significant state claims.  Ibid. 

The  Court  therefore  struck  a  balance,  turning  on  the
stage of the pregnancy at which the abortion would occur.
The Court explained that early on, a woman’s choice must 
prevail, but that “at some point the state interests” become 
“dominant.”  Id., at 155.  It then set some guideposts.  In 
the first trimester of pregnancy, the State could not inter-
fere at all with the decision to terminate a pregnancy.  At 
any time after that point, the State could regulate to protect
the  pregnant  woman’s  health,  such  as  by  insisting  that 
abortion providers and facilities meet safety requirements. 
And  after  the  fetus’s  viability—the  point  when  the  fetus
“has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s 
womb”—the State could ban abortions, except when neces-
sary to preserve the woman’s life or health.  Id., at 163–164. 
In  the  20  years  between  Roe  and  Casey,  the  Court  ex-
pressly reaffirmed Roe on two occasions, and applied it on 
many  more.    Recognizing  that  “arguments  [against  Roe]
continue  to  be  made,”  we  responded  that  the  doctrine  of 
stare decisis “demands respect in a society governed by the
rule  of  law.”  Akron  v.  Akron  Center  for  Reproductive 
Health, Inc., 462 U. S. 416, 419–420 (1983).  And we avowed 
that the “vitality” of “constitutional principles cannot be al-
lowed to yield simply because of disagreement with them.” 
Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gyne-
cologists, 476 U. S. 747, 759 (1986).  So the Court, over and