Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 82.0

74  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

Opinion of the Court 

at 63–64.  If viability was not an essential part of the rule 
adopted in Roe, the Court would have had no need to make 
that comparison. 

The holding in Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U. S. 379, is even 
more instructive.  In that case, the Court noted that prior
cases had “stressed viability” and reiterated that “[v]iabil-
ity is the critical point” under Roe.  439 U. S., at 388–389. 
It then struck down Pennsylvania’s definition of viability, 
id., at 389–394, and it is hard to see how the Court could 
have done that if Roe’s discussion of viability was not part
of its holding. 

When  the  Court  reconsidered  Roe  in  Casey,  it  left  no 
doubt  about  the  importance  of  the  viability  rule.  It  de-
scribed the rule as Roe’s “central holding,” 505 U. S., at 860,
and repeatedly stated that the right it reaffirmed was “the
right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before vi-
ability.”  Id., at 846 (emphasis added).  See id., at 871 (“The 
woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy before viability 
is the most central principle of Roe v. Wade.  It is a rule of 
law and a component of liberty we cannot renounce” (em-
phasis added)); id., at 872 (A “woman has a right to choose 
to  terminate  or  continue  her  pregnancy  before  viability” 
(emphasis added)); id., at 879 (“[A] State may not prohibit
any woman from making the ultimate decision to terminate 
her pregnancy before viability” (emphasis added)). 

Our  subsequent  cases  have  continued  to  recognize  the 
centrality of the viability rule.  See Whole Women’s Health, 
579 U. S., at 589–590 (“[A] provision of law is constitution-
ally invalid, if the ‘purpose or effect’ of the provision ‘is to 
place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking 
an abortion before the fetus attains viability’ ” (emphasis de-
leted and added));  id.,  at 627 (“[W]e now use ‘viability’ as 
the  relevant  point  at  which  a  State  may  begin  limiting 
women’s access to abortion for reasons unrelated to mater-
nal health” (emphasis added)).