The U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs ruling is a realization of concerns that had already been detailed in Justice Ginsberg's objection to the Gonzales v. Carhart ruling in 2007. Justice Ginsberg criticized the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Gonzales' ruling as eating away the great spirit of the U.S. Supreme Court, which approved the abortion ban, and pointed out the risk of returning to the result of denying the spirit of abortion freedom in the future, 15 years later, this concern became a reality. I would like to ask whether the argument of Roe's ruling, which gave women who had been in the role of sublime pregnancy and childbirth the basic value of freedom of choice or self-determination to resolve discrimination and oppression against women and break away from the framework of unjust control that had to force unwanted situations, was entirely denied. Not only in the United States, but also in Korea, efforts have been made to guarantee women's discrimination and rights for a long time, and those efforts have barely been paying off, and the Supreme Court has changed the precedent unfavorably by breaking the public's expectations, faith, and faith in women's right to choose, which have been maintained for nearly half a century. Nevertheless, we will have to firmly follow the flow of history, but it may be affected to some extent by the Dobbs ruling above. In this regard, this article emphasizes the injustice by critically analyzing the Dobbs ruling and highlighting the problems, and aims to lay the groundwork for the improvement legislation as a follow-up to the constitutional inconsistency decision made by the Constitutional Court of Korea.