State abortion laws are once again being argued in front of the Supreme Court, starting Wednesday. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization gives the Court an opportunity to reevaluate the controversial decisions of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
The Dobbs case questions the legality of a Mississippi law that restricts abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy -- when fetuses have developed facial features, fingers, toes, and can feel pain.
These arguments shed light on the unconstitutional and partisan decisions the Court made in its Roe and Casey decisions. Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino explained the issues with the Court’s original rulings.
“The major problem with Roe from a constitutional perspective is that the Court took something that appears nowhere in that document – and which therefore is left to the states – and promoted it to a fundamental right,” Severino wrote.
Severino argued Dobbs gives the Court the chance to correct these mistakes and to move away from becoming a political institution.
“For the sake of its own integrity, the Court can recognize that the best course is to go back to what the Constitution itself says and overturn Roe, and [leave] the matter of determining abortion policy to the American people,” Severino tweeted.
If the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe and uphold the Mississippi law, the power to regulate abortion would be placed back in the hands of the states. Each state government would be able to decide -- according to the preferences of its citizens -- how accessible abortion will or will not be.
Severino noted the Court found itself being so politicized because of the decisions made in Roe and Casey. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation trial turned into a fiasco because of the mobilization of abortion activists who feared he would vote to overturn Roe in the future.
“The issue of abortion drove intense opposition to Kavanaugh’s confirmation as groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL organized and financed national speaking tours, ads, and armies of protesters,” Severino wrote.
With the Court abandoning the Constitution in its rulings of Roe and Casey, it placed itself in the realm of political figures; once the Court strays from the influence of the Constitution, it essentially consists of unelected lawmakers.
The state of Mississippi argued this point in its briefing of the Dobbs case, pointing out that the prior cases had “harmed the perception of this court.”
“Roe and Casey are profoundly unprincipled decisions that have damaged the democratic process, poisoned our national discourse, plagued the law, and harmed the perception of this court. Retaining those precedents harms this court’s legitimacy.”
Severino argues that by overturning Roe v. Wade, the court will be able to work its way out of the political sphere and return to its rightful place as defenders of the Constitution.
“Such a decision will allow the court to get out of the business of operating as a de facto medical board, and instead let elected and accountable politicians do the work of shaping abortion policy.”
Megan Williams is a CNSNews intern and junior at Hillsdale College. She is majoring in Rhetoric and Public Address with a Journalism minor. She is the assistant opinions editor for the Hillsdale Collegian and enjoys covering local events, from concerts to conventions. Born and raised in Southern California, Megan is excited to experience D.C. and grow as a journalist with CNSNews.