On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court officially ruled that a Texas statute banning abortion was unconstitutional, establishing that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicitly protected under the right to privacy in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. 

Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision from the court. It decriminalized abortions, which had been illegal in most states. 

In early December 2021, the current conservative-dominated court placed Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health on its docket. The new Mississippi law in question would severely restrict the ability for women to get an abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy — well before the 24-week time period of fetal viability presented in Roe. When the Supreme Court voted to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, it was clear what its intent was: to overturn Roe v. Wade. 

It is ignorant to pretend that both Dobbs and its addition to the Supreme Court’s docket are not direct challenges to Roe, and that the motivations of the court, which currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority, are anything short of purely political. Conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas, who are anticipated to vote in favor of the law, have already proved through their arguments that their reasons for overturning Roe are only ideological. 

Kavanaugh, for example, argued that the court’s history of overturning cases in the past have helped the U.S. progress to where it is today. While this is true, the cases Kavanaugh listed such as Brown v. Board of Education and Obergefell v. Hodges, involved the court overturning precedents that gave excessive state power over what should be perceived as individual issues. This is the exact opposite of Dobbs challenging Roe. 

Furthermore, Kavanaugh’s argument points out the extended ramifications of states’ rights that will follow overturning Roe.

Roe v. Wade did not invent abortion in the U.S., but is a landmark case for women’s rights. Its symbolism extends past the topic of abortion itself. A state’s right to dictate abortion, granted through Roe, was based on the precedent set by the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, when the Supreme Court legalized contraception for married couples and found a constitutional right to sexual privacy for adults. 

Griswold also paved the way for many other cases all under the basis of privacy found in the 14th Amendment, specifically those which legalized consensual sex for adults regardless of gender and established the right to same-sex marriage. 

This theory of the right to privacy, substantive due process, has established multiple other rights over the course of the last several decades, including Loving v. Virginia, which legalized interracial marriage, and Eisenstadt v. Baird, which allowed unmarried people the right to birth control. 

Overturning Roe v. Wade means there is little protecting these other cherished rights. In fact, it would most likely bring back a multitude of debates over which rights states should be able to control rights such as same-sex marriage and reproductive rights, topics that are also currently frequently contested. 

The decision over Roe will serve as a crucial turning point and will affect the public perception of the court, potentially pitting them against a majority of Americans who consistently support abortion rights and other enshrined liberties. While Roe seems to be in grave danger, the court’s decisions have been unpredictable in the past. Perhaps the justices will come to their senses and not endanger these wide range of rights that are now embedded firmly in the fabric of American life.