Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 145.0

10  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment 

(2017).  Almost all know by the end of the first trimester.
Pregnancy  Recognition  39.  Safe  and  effective  abortifa-
cients,  moreover,  are  now  readily  available,  particularly
during those early stages.  See I. Adibi et al., Abortion, 22 
Geo. J. Gender & L. 279, 303 (2021).  Given all this, it is no 
surprise that the vast majority of abortions happen in the
first trimester.  See Centers for Disease Control and Pre-
vention,  Abortion  Surveillance—United  States  1  (2020).
Presumably  most  of  the  remainder  would  also  take  place
earlier if later abortions were not a legal option.  Ample ev-
idence thus suggests that a 15-week ban provides sufficient 
time, absent rare circumstances, for a woman “to decide for 
herself ” whether to terminate her pregnancy.  Webster, 492 
U. S., at 520 (plurality opinion).* 

III 
Whether  a  precedent  should  be  overruled  is  a  question 
“entirely within the discretion of the court.”  Hertz v. Wood-
man, 218 U. S. 205, 212 (1910); see also Payne v. Tennessee, 
501 U. S. 808, 828 (1991) (stare decisis is a “principle of pol-
icy”).  In my respectful view, the sound exercise of that dis-
cretion should have led the Court to resolve the case on the 
narrower  grounds  set  forth  above,  rather  than  overruling 
Roe and Casey entirely.  The Court says there is no “princi-
pled  basis”  for  this  approach,  ante,  at  73,  but  in  fact  it  is 
firmly grounded in basic principles of stare decisis and judi-
cial restraint. 

—————— 

*The majority contends that “nothing like [my approach] was recom-
mended by either party.”  Ante, at 72.  But as explained, Mississippi in
fact pressed a similar argument in its filings before this Court.  See Pet. 
for Cert. 15–26; Brief for Petitioners 5, 38–48 (urging the Court to reject
the viability rule and reverse); Reply Brief 20–22 (same).  The approach
also finds support in prior opinions.  See Webster, 492 U. S., at 518–521 
(plurality opinion) (abandoning “key elements” of the Roe framework un-
der stare decisis while declining to reconsider Roe’s holding that the Con-
stitution protects the right to an abortion).