Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 43

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

35 

Opinion of the Court 

Both  sides  make  important  policy  arguments,  but  sup-
porters of Roe and Casey must show that this Court has the 
authority to weigh those arguments and decide how abor-
tion  may  be  regulated  in  the  States.  They  have  failed  to
make that showing, and we thus return the power to weigh
those arguments to the people and their elected represent-
atives. 

D 
1 
The dissent is very candid that it cannot show that a con-
stitutional right to abortion has any foundation, let alone a
“ ‘deeply  rooted’ ”  one,  “ ‘in  this  Nation’s  history  and  tradi-
tion.’ ”    Glucksberg,  521  U. S.,  at  721;  see  post,  at  12–14 
(joint  opinion  of  BREYER,  SOTOMAYOR,  and  KAGAN,  JJ.). 
The  dissent  does  not  identify  any  pre-Roe  authority  that 
supports such a right—no state constitutional provision or
statute,  no  federal  or  state  judicial  precedent,  not  even  a 
scholarly treatise.  Compare post, at 12–14, n. 2, with su-
pra, at 15–16, and n. 23.  Nor does the dissent dispute the
fact that abortion was illegal at common law at least after
quickening; that the 19th century saw a trend toward crim-
inalization of pre-quickening abortions; that by 1868, a su-
permajority of States (at least 26 of 37) had enacted stat-
utes criminalizing abortion at all stages of pregnancy; that
by  the  late  1950s  at  least  46  States  prohibited  abortion
“however and whenever performed” except if necessary to
save “the life of the mother,” Roe, 410 U. S., at 139; and that 
when Roe was decided in 1973 similar statutes were still in 
effect in 30 States.  Compare post, at 12–14, nn. 2–3, with 
supra, at 23–25, and nn. 33–34.47 

The dissent’s failure to engage with this long tradition is 

—————— 

47 By  way  of  contrast,  at  the  time  Griswold v.  Connecticut,  381  U. S. 
479 (1965), was decided, the Connecticut statute at issue was an extreme 
outlier.  See Brief for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. as 
Amicus Curiae in Griswold v. Connecticut, O. T. 1964, No. 496, p. 27.