Contemplating the U.S. Supreme Court's Reversal of Roe v. Wade

Abstract

The Roe case and Casey case were important moments in the women's liberation movement in the United States, recognizing women's constitutional right to abortion, and a fundamental aspect of their autonomy. In contrast, the recent Dobbs case upended the established Roe precedent, rejecting constitutional recognition of women's right to abortion and reverting "regulation of abortion rights to the people and their elected representatives. To delve deeper into this matter, it's crucial to examine the legal doctrines at play. The Roe decision primarily invoked the Substantive Due Process Clause to protect a woman's privacy and reproductive choices, whereas the Dobbs case highlighted the importance of the democratic process and aligns with originalism in constitutional interpretation. This shift raises questions about the durability of constitutional precedents and the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation. The conflict between these cases underscores the profound implications for women's reproductive rights and the broader women's liberation movement, as the nation grapples with the balance between individual autonomy and democratic decision-making in shaping constitutional rights.