Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 136

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

1 

ROBERTS, C. J., concurring 
ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–1392 
_________________ 

THOMAS E. DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF 
THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 
ET AL., PETITIONERS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S 
HEALTH ORGANIZATION, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 24, 2022] 

  CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, concurring in the judgment. 
  We  granted  certiorari  to  decide  one  question:  “Whether 
all  pre-viability  prohibitions  on  elective  abortions  are  un-
constitutional.”  Pet. for Cert. i.  That question is directly 
implicated  here:  Mississippi’s  Gestational  Age  Act,  Miss. 
Code Ann. §41–41–191 (2018), generally prohibits abortion 
after the fifteenth week of pregnancy—several weeks before 
a fetus is regarded as “viable” outside the womb.  In urging 
our  review,  Mississippi  stated  that  its  case  was  “an  ideal 
vehicle”  to  “reconsider  the  bright-line  viability  rule,”  and 
that a judgment in its favor would “not require the Court to 
overturn” Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), and Planned 
Parenthood  of  Southeastern  Pa.  v.  Casey,  505  U. S.  833 
(1992).  Pet. for Cert. 5. 
  Today, the Court nonetheless rules for Mississippi by do-
ing just that.  I would take a more measured course.  I agree 
with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and 
Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare de-
cisis analysis.  That line never made any sense.  Our abor-
tion  precedents  describe  the  right  at  issue  as  a  woman’s 
right  to  choose  to  terminate  her  pregnancy.    That  right 
should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable 
opportunity  to  choose,  but  need  not  extend  any  further—