Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 84

76  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

Opinion of the Court 

3 
The concurrence would “leave for another day whether to
reject  any  right  to  an abortion  at all,”  post,  at  7,  but  “an-
other day” would not be long in coming.  Some States have 
set  deadlines  for  obtaining  an  abortion  that  are  shorter 
than Mississippi’s.  See, e.g., Memphis Center for Reproduc-
tive  Health  v.  Slatery,  14  F.  4th,  at  414  (considering  law 
with bans “at cascading intervals of two to three weeks” be-
ginning at six weeks), reh’g en banc granted, 14 F. 4th 550
(CA6 2021).  If we held only that Mississippi’s 15-week rule
is constitutional, we would soon be called upon to pass on 
the constitutionality of a panoply of laws with shorter dead-
lines or no deadline at all.  The “measured course” charted 
by the concurrence would be fraught with turmoil until the
Court answered the question that the concurrence seeks to 
defer. 

Even if the Court ultimately adopted the new rule sug-
gested by the concurrence, we would be faced with the dif-
ficult problem of spelling out what it means.  For example,
if the period required to give women a “reasonable” oppor-
tunity  to  obtain  an  abortion  were  pegged,  as  the  concur-
rence seems to suggest, at the point when a certain percent-
age of women make that choice, see post, at 1–2, 9–10, we 
would  have  to  identify  the  relevant  percentage.    It  would 
also  be  necessary  to  explain  what  the  concurrence  means 
when it refers to “rare circumstances” that might justify an
exception.  Post, at 10.  And if this new right aims to give 
women  a  reasonable  opportunity  to  get  an  abortion,  it 
would  be  necessary  to  decide  whether  factors  other  than 
promptness  in  deciding  might  have  a  bearing  on  whether 
such an opportunity was available.

In sum, the concurrence’s quest for a middle way would 
only put off the day when we would be forced to confront the
question we now decide.  The turmoil wrought by Roe and 
Casey would be prolonged.  It is far better—for this Court