# ========================================================================== # IMPORTANT TECHNICAL NOTICE # ========================================================================== # 1. TECHNICAL PRE-PROCESSING: This output constitutes technical data # pre-processing and does not constitute legal advice, analysis, or the # provision of regulated services. # # 2. NO WARRANTY: This text is the result of algorithmic segmentation and # probabilistic compression. Kaipsul LLC makes no warranties regarding # accuracy or completeness. Mandatory verification against source # documentation is required. # # 3. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY: Users retain sole and exclusive # responsibility for all professional obligations, decisions, and work # product derived herein. # ========================================================================== MIRC v0.1.0 Processing Log Total Chunks: 144 Successful: 144 Failed: 0 Original: 428,906 chars Compressed: 61,963 chars Ratio: 14.4% ======================================= CHUNK 1 ======================================= DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION: The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, removing constitutional abortion rights and returning regulation authority to states. The Court argued that the Constitution does not explicitly confer an abortion right and reviewed whether the Fourteenth Amendment's "liberty" clause supports such a right. CHUNK 2 ======================================= The Court reviews abortion regulations similarly to other health measures, stating the right isn't rooted in history or essential for "ordered liberty." The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't protect abortion, as it wasn't recognized before Roe v. Wade and common law treated it as unlawful. CHUNK 3 ======================================= Casey ignored Roe's flawed history, which claimed abortion wasn't a common-law crime before quickening. Common-law authorities, like Bracton and Coke, considered abortions before quickening unlawful. The Solicitor General's view that history supports abortion rights is undermined by inconsistent legal standards and state laws. Roe and Casey argued abortion rights are part of a broader right to privacy or personal choice, balancing interests of woman and potential life. However, the Court found abortion rights don't fit into existing entrenched rights, as they conflict with broader autonomy principles. Abortions destroy "potential life," setting it apart from other rights. CHUNK 4 ======================================= The law challenges Roe's and Casey's "unborn human being" designation, which supports abortion rights. Roe & Casey do not support abortion rights; the Court's decision doesn't affect them. Stare decisis isn't infallible; the Court has overruled precedents. Five factors favor overturning Roe & Casey. Roe was egregiously wrong and disrupted democratic processes. Its reasoning lacked constitutional grounding, ignoring historical context and state laws. CHUNK 5 ======================================= Legislative committees' fact-finding lacked clarity on sources' relevance to the Constitution. The Court supported a constitutional "right of personal privacy" but mixed it with the right to make personal decisions without interference. Roe conflated information disclosure protection with the right to make personal decisions, not addressing abortion's impact on "potential life." Roe's viability line for abortions lacks philosophical support due to its changing nature. Casey revisited Roe, reaffirmed its holding but criticized its reasoning, abandoning privacy rights and grounding the abortion right in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Casey rejected Roe's trimester scheme, introduced a new "undue burden" test, and acknowledged Roe's precedential status without solid constitutional grounding. The decision's workability is crucial for determining whether to overturn precedent. CHUNK 6 ======================================= Casey's "undue burden" test is impractical, causing legal conflicts and undermining consistent legal principles. Roe and Casey distort unrelated doctrines. Overruling them won't affect concrete reliance interests in property and contracts. The decision focuses solely on abortion rights, not broader Due Process protections. CHUNK 7 ======================================= The Supreme Court emphasized adhering to precedents, particularly in matters unrelated to abortion, while allowing states to regulate abortion based on rational grounds. The decision prioritizes legislative intent over judicial belief in social issues. The Court overruled Roe and Casey, returning regulation authority to states. CHUNK 8 ======================================= Abortion is a deeply divisive issue in the U.S., with varying views on when life begins and women's rights. Pre-Roe (1973), states regulated abortion independently. Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide, though it didn't define a constitutional right, deciding viability at the second trimester. Critics argue it lacked legal coherence. Roe ended previous state abortion laws uniformly, imposing a national standard. CHUNK 9 ======================================= Roe v. Wade sparked decades of political controversy. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court revisited Roe, splitting opinions but upholding Roe's core decision that a state can't protect fetal life pre-viability. Casey overrode Roe's trimester framework, replacing it with a vague standard against "undue burden" on abortion rights, without clear guidance. This move aimed to settle abortion rights disputes, but left many questions unanswered. CHUNK 10 ======================================= Casey did not achieve its goal; abortion laws vary. 26 states seek to override Roe/Casey to regulate pre-viability abortions. Mississippi's law questions Roe/Casey, opponents ask to reaffirm them. The Court decides Roe/Casey must be overruled; no constitutional right to abortion exists. The right has no historical or liberty-rooted precedent. CHUNK 11 ======================================= The Mississippi Gestational Age Act bans abortion after 15 weeks except for medical emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities. The law cites evidence that most abortions beyond this gestational age use invasive procedures. The decision challenges Roe and Casey, arguing these precedents have worsened abortion debates and should be resolved by democratic processes. CHUNK 12 ======================================= The Court ruled that pre-viability abortions are unconstitutional, enjoining enforcement of the Mississippi Gestational Age Act. The decision challenges Roe and Casey, arguing for either reaffirmation or overturning these precedents. CHUNK 13 ======================================= The Court must evaluate the merits of Roe's foundational grounds under stare decisis. We'll address a question Casey didn't tackle by outlining three steps: 1) Determining if "liberty" protects a right, 2) Whether the right aligns with historical "ordered liberty," and 3) If abortion is part of a broader supported right. The Constitution lacks a direct abortion right, so claims must show implicit protection. Roe linked abortion to privacy, citing multiple constitutional provisions, but left unclear how these protect abortion. Three interpretations exist: Ninth Amendment rights, incorporation of other rights into Due Process, or Fourteenth Amendment's "liberty" protection. CHUNK 14 ======================================= The decision relied solely on the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, not the Equal Protection Clause, for abortion rights. Precedents prevent applying heightened scrutiny to abortion laws due to lack of sex-based classification. The Due Process Clause, though controversial, protects substantive rights like those from the first eight Amendments, now applicable to states. CHUNK 15 ======================================= The Court determines if rights are fundamental by assessing their historical roots and importance to ordered liberty. For instance, rights like the protection against excessive fines (Limbs) and the right to bear arms (McDonald) are deemed fundamental, traced back to historical documents and state constitutions. The analysis involves examining historical records to establish the right's foundational nature. CHUNK 16 ======================================= The Supreme Court's Glucksberg decision emphasized that a fundamental right must be deeply rooted in American history and tradition. Terms like "liberty" are ambiguous, needing historical context. The Fourteenth Amendment does not protect the right to abortion, as there was no constitutional basis for such a right until the late 20th century. The Court warns against judicial overreach in defining liberty, urging adherence to historical and traditional principles. CHUNK 17 ======================================= Before Roe, no court recognized an abortion right. Abortion was a crime under common law until 1800s. Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause was seen as guaranteeing substantive rights, but a right rooted in history was needed. Roe ignored or misrepresented this history, leading to Casey not revisiting Roe's flawed analysis. CHUNK 18 ======================================= Abortion was generally considered criminal by the 16th or 18th week of pregnancy, as legal texts and historical authorities, like Blackstone and Coke, defined abortion after "quickening" as homicide or a grave offense. Treatises from the 13th to 17th centuries consistently labeled abortion of a quick child as murder or a misprision. English law and historical cases throughout the centuries supported this stance, making abortion criminal at these stages. CHUNK 19 ======================================= Abortion was legal or even permissible under common law. Even pre-quickening abortions were not condoned; they could be considered homicide if done maliciously. Legal sanctions for abortion were severe, with one historical example involving imprisonment and pillorying for "destroying the Foetus." Common law prosecutors treated abortion charges as serious crimes, often equating it with murder under certain conditions, such as when a physician's actions led to death. CHUNK 20 ======================================= The proto-felony-murder rule required abortionists to intentionally kill a "quick child," contrasting with other physicians who couldn't be charged for unintentional deaths. Historically, abortionists faced harsher penalties than others who caused deaths without intent. Common-law authorities varied on punishments for abortions, and no positive right to abortion was endorsed. Historical records and manuals consistently upheld the rule against abortionists. CHUNK 21 ======================================= Abortion laws in colonial times criminalized abortion of quickening-stage fetuses due to lack of early pregnancy detection methods. Courts defined life at quickening, based on fetal movements. The Solicitor General suggests this reflects societal view that a fetus lacks independent existence before quickening, though this aligns with broader legal views that prenatal life holds value. CHUNK 22 ======================================= The "quickening rule" in abortion law was abandoned in the 19th century, criticized for lacking medical and legal justification. By 1868, most U.S. states criminalized abortion at all stages, even before quickening. The 1803 British Parliament's act criminalized abortion at all stages, reflecting medical concerns for fetal life protection. CHUNK 23 ======================================= By 1910, nearly all states criminalized abortion at all stages. Prior to Roe v. Wade, 30 states still banned abortion except to save the mother's life, despite some loosening trends. CHUNK 24 ======================================= The court's opinion in Roe refutes the idea that abortion is deeply rooted in U.S. history or tradition. It notes that abortion was historically prohibited, with most states criminalizing it by 1868. Despite arguments from respondents and amici, the lack of constitutional or judicial precedent for a constitutional right to abortion remains unaddressed. Legal authorities affirm that abortion was not firmly established as a common-law crime until Roe, and historical arguments lack strength. CHUNK 25 ======================================= Roe relied on discredited pro-abortion advocacy, ignoring historical pro-life authorities. The historical lack of abortion criminalization before quickening is contested, as some states imposed restrictions post-quickening. CHUNK 26 ======================================= The U.S. Supreme Court case 597 U.S. (2022) challenges the interpretation of the 18th Amendment, stating it protects broad abortion rights, often citing "emotional" or "familial" needs. Historical context shows that abortion laws were not seen as violating fundamental rights in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The case critiques arguments based on legislative motives, emphasizing the lack of historical support for claims about Catholic immigrants influencing these laws. The Court cautions against attributing motives to legislative bodies based on isolated statements, finding no substantial historical backing for the rights Roe and Casey recognized. CHUNK 27 ======================================= The passage discusses historical laws criminalizing abortion, emphasizing they were enacted based on beliefs abortion kills a human, not hostility toward Catholics or women. Judicial decisions from the late 19th and early 20th centuries supported this view. The Court acknowledged differing opinions on abortion but affirmed the sincerity of opponents. Roe and Casey recognized good faith among abortion opponents, but did not question the significance of state laws. The abortion right is seen as part of broader privacy and personal autonomy rights, though not absolute. CHUNK 28 ======================================= The Court's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization acknowledges Roe's demographic impact, particularly on Black fetuses. It emphasizes ordered liberty, allowing states to regulate abortion based on differing values. The opinion rejects precedent-based abortion rights, citing reliance on cases like Loving, Griswold, and others. CHUNK 29 ======================================= Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood are outdated. They ignore the constitutionality of abortion. They don't cite any recent scientific learning that would change the moral question. They claim abortion is a new societal need because of changing attitudes about pregnancies. Attitudes about pregnancy have changed drastically, and most Americans want abortion restrictions. CHUNK 30 ======================================= Legal protections now ensure pregnancy and childbirth are covered by law, with medical care and employment rights guaranteed. Safe haven laws allow anonymous newborn surrenders. The Affordable Care Act mandates maternity care coverage, prohibiting cost-sharing for pregnancy-related services. CHUNK 31 ======================================= Infant relinquishment for adoption has declined, with 3.1 million women taking adoption steps from 2015-2019. The Court must decide abortion regulation's authority, failing to substantiate a constitutional abortion right despite historical abortion illegality. The dissent lacks evidence supporting abortion rights, ignoring historical abortion criminalization trends. The Court requires a deeply rooted unenumerated right in national history to be protected by the Due Process Clause. CHUNK 32 ======================================= The dissent misrepresents our focus, claiming we only consider 19th-century abortion law, but our review extends beyond that. Post-1868, state-level abortion bans were common, and many states seek to overturn Roe and Casey. The dissent cannot argue abortion rights are rooted in history, claiming constitutional tradition evolves over time. This broad approach limits judicial power, yet Roe's defense fails due to lack of historical or precedent support. Roe's reasoning can't withstand scrutiny, and adherence to precedent isn't absolute. The dissent lacks substantial arguments against the Court's decision. CHUNK 33 ======================================= The dissent compares abortion rights to those in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell but fails to distinguish abortion's impact on "potential life." It overlooks State interest in protecting prenatal life, despite acknowledging pregnancy effects on women. The dissent lacks rationale for the viability line, which doesn't justify prohibiting fetal destruction beyond it. The opinion rejects imposing a theory on when personhood begins, citing no constitutional basis. Stare decisis supports Roe and Casey's continuation despite reliance on past decisions. CHUNK 34 ======================================= Precedent shapes judicial decisions, fostering consistency and integrity, yet isn't rigid. It values settled issues, especially constitutional ones, acknowledging overrule when necessary to correct mistakes. Historical overrules include Brown v. Board of Education and West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. CHUNK 35 ======================================= The text outlines significant Supreme Court precedents that protected individual liberties against state and federal legislation, citing cases like Lochner v. New York and Barnette v. Board of Education. It also mentions instances where the Court overruled earlier decisions, such as in Obergefell v. Hodges and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. CHUNK 36 ======================================= The text outlines Supreme Court decisions from 1965 to 1985, addressing race, gender, constitutional rights, and federal powers. Key rulings include overruling previous cases on race, gender classifications, jury exclusion, self-incrimination, and congressional redistricting, emphasizing equal protection, Fourth Amendment privacy, Fifth Amendment rights, and due process. CHUNK 37 ======================================= The Supreme Court, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overruled Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, citing significant errors in their reasoning and substantial negative impacts on constitutional interpretation. Five factors support this decision: error nature, reasoning quality, rule workability, disruptive effect, and reliance absence. Dobbs asserts that Roe and Casey's interpretations were egregiously wrong and violated principles of equality before the law, similar to other historically incorrect precedents like Plessy v. Ferguson. CHUNK 38 ======================================= Casey perpetuated Roe's errors by sidelining democratic processes for those opposing Roe. This inflamed politics and affected Supreme Court justices' selection. Roe's weak reasoning relied on flawed historical narratives, lacking grounding in Constitution or precedent. Such decisions should be revisited to restore authority to the people. CHUNK 39 ======================================= Roe v. Wade established a trimester framework for abortion regulations, based on the Court's own creation, without grounding in constitutional text, history, or precedent. The Casey decision revised but did not endorse Roe's reasoning, replacing the trimester system with an "undue burden" test. Critics argue Roe's framework resembles legislative rules rather than constitutional interpretation, lacking support from constitutional sources. CHUNK 40 ======================================= The Court extensively discussed ancient practices on infanticide but minimally addressed U.S. abortion regulation post-Fourteenth Amendment. It erroneously suggested that common law rarely treated post-quickening abortions as crimes, influenced by discredited articles. The decision cited legislative and health association data, British legal cases, and precedent, notably conflating "personal privacy" concepts. CHUNK 41 ======================================= The Supreme Court's 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision aimed to shield personal decisions from government interference and protect information. Relevant precedents linked to personal freedoms include Pierce and Meyer. Cases concerning marriage (Loving), procreation (Skinner, Griswold, Eisenstadt), and abortion didn't fully address abortion's unique implications. Roe's decision used flawed history and legislative-like reasoning, ignoring legislative deferral in medical uncertainties. It didn't justify state regulation of first-trimester abortions for health protection or distinguish pre- and post-viability abortions convincingly. CHUNK 42 ======================================= The decision to consider a fetus viable and capable of surviving outside the womb is arbitrary and not universally compelling for legal protection. Philosophers argue that personhood should be based on characteristics like sentience and self-awareness, rather than viability. Viability is influenced by factors unrelated to a fetus's personhood attributes, making viability an unjustified threshold for legal rights. CHUNK 43 ======================================= Viability of a fetus depends on gestational age and medical facilities, not a strict line. It varies by time, location, and medical quality. This makes it difficult to set a universal standard, as survival odds depend on multiple factors. CHUNK 44 ======================================= Roe's decision improperly imposed a uniform viability rule, limiting states' regulation of abortion. Critics, including legal scholars, criticized its reasoning as weak and unconstitutional. Despite these criticisms, Roe's reach expanded over time, introducing various state-imposed restrictions on abortion procedures. CHUNK 45 ======================================= **DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION** The Court revisited Roe, abandoning its reasoning and precedent. Reaffirming Roe's central holding without support. Replacing the trimester scheme with an "undue burden" test, lacking clarity and application. No substantial effort to address Roe's weaknesses or support the abortion right. The opinion acknowledged reservations about Roe's viability rule. CHUNK 46 ======================================= The "undue burden" test in Casey has flaws: it lacks standardness and results in debate over what constitutes a "substantial obstacle." Its workability is questionable, as it complicates consistent application. CHUNK 47 ======================================= Casey's rules on abortion regulations are ambiguous, leading to confusion. The "undue burden" standard is vague, with unclear definitions for "necessary," "substantial obstacle," and varying impacts on women. Casey's opinions lacked clear criteria for when these burdens are substantial, causing ongoing debate. In Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, differing interpretations arose, highlighting the rule's complexities. CHUNK 48 ======================================= The "undue burden" test in abortion cases has been ambiguous and led to disagreements. Initially, the Court adopted a cost-benefit approach in Whole Woman's Health, but later, Chief Justice Rehnquist and other Justices criticized this, arguing it wasn't intended by Casey. Courts of Appeals have faced conflicts over interpreting this test, leading to debates on parental notification rules and clinic time requirements. CHUNK 49 ======================================= State-regulated abortions based on race, sex, or disability face challenges in consistent application. Courts struggle with Casey's "undue burden" test, leading to unpredictable results. These issues distort unrelated legal doctrines, supporting calls to reconsider Roe and Casey. CHUNK 50 ======================================= The text discusses criticism of U.S. Supreme Court decisions on abortion cases. Key points include: 1. Dilution of strict constitutional challenges. 2. Ignoring third-party standing doctrine. 3. Disregarding res judicata and severability rules. 4. Distortion of First Amendment doctrines. 5. Failure to provide principled legal development through new doctrines. 6. Concern about affecting substantial reliance interests if Roe and Casey are overturned. CHUNK 51 ======================================= The Court dismisses reliance interests for abortion access, citing Casey's focus on unplanned activities and intangible societal roles. Courts lack expertise to evaluate these intangible claims, emphasizing concrete reliance like property rights. The Court declines to adjudicate disputes about abortion's societal impact and the fetus's status, maintaining that courts should not substitute their social judgment. CHUNK 52 ======================================= In the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, the Supreme Court returned abortion legislation to state legislatures, emphasizing women's political power and participation. The decision clarifies that it pertains solely to abortion rights, not broader constitutional protections. It also addresses concerns about the Court's standing and adherence to precedent. CHUNK 53 ======================================= The Court overruling Roe due to political pressure is seen as undermining public trust, favoring its preservation. However, decisions should reflect legal principle, not public opinion, as outlined in Casey. The Court's legitimacy comes from interpreting constitutional law, not public sentiment. The Casey plurality overstepped its constitutional role by claiming authority to resolve national constitutional issues permanently. The Court's authority is limited to interpreting law, not altering precedents. CHUNK 54 ======================================= The Court's rulings on Roe and Casey have not resolved the abortion debate, which remains deeply divisive. States request the Court to return abortion regulation to elected officials. The Court concludes that the Constitution does not grant a right to abortion and overrules Roe and Casey, returning authority to the people. The dissent argues for adherence to stare decisis, claiming overruling should only occur with substantial legal or factual changes, contrasting with past precedents like Brown v. Board of Education. CHUNK 55 ======================================= The dissent argues that key precedents should be strictly followed, challenging overruling decisions until significant changes occur. It criticizes the decision to overturn Plessy and West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, arguing that precedents are only broken if errors are glaring. Despite acknowledging that some decisions may be wrong, it insists on maintaining Roe and Casey due to ongoing national controversy. However, the majority contends that Casey transformed precedent evaluation by addressing national disputes, and the current decision relies on traditional stare decisis principles rather than a controversial abortion-specific doctrine. CHUNK 56 ======================================= The Court rejects precedents about abortion, distinct from rights on contraception and same-sex relationships. It emphasizes each precedent's unique stare decisis analysis. The concurrence, criticized for its approach, suggests allowing abortion for 15 weeks but lacks support and is deemed unworkable. Both parties and the Solicitor General opposed this method. CHUNK 57 ======================================= The concurrence fails to provide a principled basis for discarding the viability standard from Roe and Casey, which is essential for maintaining stare decisis. Viability was central to Roe and Casey, influencing subsequent decisions. The concurrence falsely claims viability can be separated from constitutional rights. Roe's trimester rule, linked to viability, was crucial in past decisions. Reaffirming this rule is vital for upholding the precedents. CHUNK 58 ======================================= The concurrence's proposed "reasonable opportunity" rule conflicts with established cases like Casey and Whole Women's Health, which deemed certain abortion-related restrictions unconstitutional as obstacles to women's access before viability. This new rule lacks constitutional grounding and doesn't align with principles of stare decisis or historical context supporting abortion rights. The concurrence's judicial minimalism is insufficient without a valid constitutional basis. The potential for future restrictions remains a concern, as some states impose even shorter deadlines for abortion access. CHUNK 59 ======================================= The Court must decide on a standard for constitutional challenges to state abortion regulations, maintaining rational-basis review as the appropriate approach since procuring an abortion isn't a fundamental constitutional right. States can regulate abortion for legitimate reasons without judicial interference. Laws concerning abortion are entitled to a "strong presumption of validity" and must be upheld if they pass rational-basis review. CHUNK 60 ======================================= The Supreme Court upholds Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, which bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy except in emergencies or severe fetal abnormalities. The decision emphasizes legitimate state interests such as protecting prenatal life, maternal health, and preventing medical barbarity. The Court reverses Roe and Casey, returning abortion regulation to state authorities, and remands the case for further proceedings. CHUNK 61 ======================================= Illinois 1827: Up to 3 years imprisonment, $1,000 fine for intentionally harming pregnant women. New York 1828: Second-degree manslaughter; up to 1 year jail or $500 fine for abortion attempts without medical necessity. Ohio 1834: Up to 1 year jail or $500 fine for abortion attempts without medical necessity. CHUNK 62 ======================================= The passage outlines legal provisions from various U.S. states regarding the use of instruments or substances to attempt to terminate a pregnancy in women who are pregnant, with specific exceptions. Here's a summary: 1. **Ohio (1834)**: Using any instrument or substance to attempt to cause a miscarriage, unless necessary to save the mother's life, results in a high misdemeanor. Conviction leads to imprisonment in a penitentiary for up to seven years or at least one year. 2. **Indiana (1835)**: Administering any substance to induce a miscarriage with intent other than to save the mother's life results in a county jail sentence not exceeding twelve months and/or a fine not exceeding $500. 3. **Maine (1840)**: Similar penalties apply if the intent is to destroy the child, unless necessary to save the mother's life. Punishments include up to five years in state prison, a fine up to $1,000, or a jail term of up to one year. 4. **Alabama (1841)**: Intent to procure a miscarriage with non-life-saving motives is treated as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars. These laws reflect historical attitudes toward abortion, emphasizing the sanctity of life and the necessity of protecting the mother's life as a defense against these acts. CHUNK 63 ======================================= In 1845, Massachusetts and Michigan laws criminalized aiding or encouraging the miscarriage of a pregnant woman, with penalties ranging from imprisonment to fines. In Vermont, similar laws applied to the act of causing miscarriage without lawful justification, with penalties including imprisonment or fines. CHUNK 64 ======================================= People aiding or assisting abortions, if causing death, face felony imprisonment. If not fatal, they face misdemeanor penalties. **1. Michigan (1846):** Felony imprisonment (5-10 years) for death, misdemeanor for no death (1-3 years/ $200 fine). **2. Virginia (1848):** Felony imprisonment (1-5 years) for child death, misdemeanor imprisonment (1-12 months) for non-quick child death. **3. New Hampshire (1849):** Misdemeanor imprisonment (1 year), fine ($1000), or hard labor (1-10 years). **4. New Jersey (1849):** Malicious intent results in punishment for death, misdemeanor for no death. CHUNK 65 ======================================= The passage outlines laws against inducing abortion in the 19th century. Individuals or those aiding such actions face severe penalties: death penalty for malicious intent, fines up to $1,000 or imprisonment for up to 15 years if the woman dies; misdemeanor penalties up to $500 fine or 7 years imprisonment otherwise. These laws reflect harsh punishments for illegal abortion attempts. CHUNK 66 ======================================= State laws from 1856-1860 punished individuals who intentionally induced miscarriages in pregnant women, except in cases necessary to save the woman's life or advised by a physician. Penalties varied from fines to imprisonment for up to a year. CHUNK 67 ======================================= These U.S. state laws from 1860 and 1861 prohibit inducing a miscarriage or abortion without necessity to save a woman's life, subjecting violators to prison time and fines. Violators face penalties of up to five years in prison, or fines up to $1,000, with exceptions for doctors acting in professional emergencies. CHUNK 68 ======================================= West Virginia (1863): Adopted Virginia laws as state laws unless altered. Virginia law 1863: Punish abortion attempt with 1-5 years imprisonment. Oregon (1864): Manslaughter for inducing abortion unless to save mother's life. Nebraska (1866): Malicious poisoning with 1-7 years imprisonment; abortion attempt 3 years imprisonment, fine $1,000. Maryland (1868): Punish abortion advertisement/distribution. CHUNK 69 ======================================= This passage discusses legal prohibitions against inducing abortions, detailing criminal penalties and exceptions. It highlights laws from 1866 Nebraska and 1868 Florida, emphasizing punishment for those aiding or causing abortions, except in cases of maternal life preservation. CHUNK 70 ======================================= Punishments for inducing miscarriages or abortions include imprisonment from 1 to 7 years or fines up to $1,000, depending on intent and consequences. CHUNK 71 ======================================= Statutes outline penalties for harming or attempting to kill a pregnant woman or fetus without necessity. Offenders face felony or misdemeanor charges, fines, and imprisonment based on intent and severity. CHUNK 72 ======================================= 1883 Laws: 1. Punish abortion attempt by death or injury to mother: 5-20 years. 2. Punish miscarriage attempt by death or injury to mother: 1-3 years. 1883 Tennessee: 1. Punish abortion attempt by death or injury to mother: 5-20 years. 2. Punish miscarriage attempt by death or injury to mother: 1-5 years. 1910 Kentucky: 1. Unlawful to prescribe or administer to pregnant woman, fines or imprisonment. CHUNK 73 ======================================= Abortion-related laws vary by state and territory, imposing penalties on individuals who induce miscarriages or abortions unless necessary to save the mother's life. Offenders face fines, imprisonment, or charges like murder or manslaughter if causing death. Consent isn't a defense, and medical licenses may be revoked for violations. CHUNK 74 ======================================= Women punished for abortion: fines/imprisonment up to 5 years for non-quick pregnancies; 5 years for quick pregnancies. Doctors justified if saving mother's life. Miscarriage fines/jail/penitentiary up to 5 years, 10 years for death. CHUNK 75 ======================================= Certainly! Here is a brief overview of the essential information from the text: 1. **Punishment for Miscarriage Attempts**: The text outlines laws from various U.S. territories and states that criminalize the administration or use of substances or instruments with the intention to cause a miscarriage. 2. **Penalty Range**: Convicted individuals face imprisonment for a term ranging from at least two years to up to five years, with some jurisdictions including a fine up to $1,000. 3. **Exceptions for Physicians**: There are specific exemptions for physicians who, in their professional judgment, deem it necessary to induce miscarriage to save a woman's life. 4. **Outdated Laws**: These laws date back to different territorial periods and reflect early legal attitudes towards reproductive health and medical ethics. 5. **Historical Context**: The jurisdictions involved-Montana, Idaho, Arizona, and Wyoming-were territories at various times before becoming states. 6. **Legal Influence**: The text references specific legislation, such as Colorado's 1876 statehood and Arizona's 1912 statehood, indicating the transition from territorial to state legal systems. 7. **Case Reference**: The text references a Supreme Court case, "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization," indicating current legal and societal impacts on these historical laws. CHUNK 76 ======================================= Legal penalties for inducing miscarriage in pregnancy varied widely in 19th-century U.S. territories: * Wyoming (1869): 3-year imprisonment, $1,000 fine. * Utah (1876): 2-10 year imprisonment. * North Dakota (1877): 3-year imprisonment. * South Dakota (1877): Same as North Dakota. * Oklahoma (1890): 1-3 year imprisonment. * Alaska (1899): Death penalty. These laws generally required a doctor's involvement for miscarriage to be legally acceptable. CHUNK 77 ======================================= Summary: The Supreme Court of the United States (597 U.S. _ (2022)) ruled there is no constitutional right to abortion. The decision counters arguments based on the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, arguing that the claimed right to abortion does not fit the criteria for a "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," as per the precedent set in Washington v. Glucksberg. CHUNK 78 ======================================= The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't protect a right to abortion. Historical evidence shows it mainly ensures compliance with laws and common law in depriving life, liberty, or property. Substantive due process isn't constitutional. The Court doesn't challenge this doctrine's broader application. CHUNK 79 ======================================= The Court's abortion cases are unique, and no party has requested reevaluation of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence. The author suggests reconsidering substantive due process precedents like Griswold and Obergefell due to demonstrable errors. The Privileges or Immunities Clause might protect unenumerated rights, but abortion isn't one. Substantive due process is deemed dangerous, elevating judges over the people. CHUNK 80 ======================================= The Court's approach to identifying fundamental rights involves significant policymaking rather than neutral legal analysis, often favoring judicial preferences over constitutional guarantees. This is evident in its abortion jurisprudence, where rights like privacy and personal liberty have been continually redefined. In cases like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court established abortion rights by invoking evolving interpretations of liberty and due process, yet fails to provide a consistent or coherent justification. Consequently, substantive due process disrupts broader constitutional law, applying stringent scrutiny to laws affecting those denied fundamental rights, as seen in cases like Eisenstadt v. Baird. CHUNK 81 ======================================= The Court's use of substantive due process for abortion cases often lacks thorough review, favoring preferred rights over lesser ones. It has been used controversially, notably in overturning Roe and Casey. The Court rightly overrules these cases but the broader impact remains significant. CHUNK 82 ======================================= The Supreme Court, via Justice Kagan, argues against Roe v. Wade, citing that abortion rights aren't constitutional. The text supports limited substantive rights and due process, suggesting it conflicts with constitutional neutrality. Justice Kagan emphasizes differing American viewpoints on abortion: women's autonomy versus fetal rights. The Constitution doesn't endorse abortion, leaving the decision to democracy and representatives. CHUNK 83 ======================================= The Court maintains judicial neutrality on abortion, returning decision-making to the democratic process. It reaffirms the Constitution's lack of authority to mandate abortion legality or illegality nationwide. Decisions on abortion remain with states and their elected representatives. CHUNK 84 ======================================= The Supreme Court is reviewing abortion laws, with states like Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii considering their responses. The Jackson Women's Health Organization argues for a constitutional right to abortion, emphasizing that rights evolve, just like the First Amendment with the Internet. However, the Court cannot unilaterally redefine constitutional rights based on moral views. The decision avoids dictating abortion laws, respecting states' legislative processes. CHUNK 85 ======================================= The Constitution permits states to handle abortion via democratic processes, and Roe erred by siding on abortion. The difficult issue is whether to overrule Roe under stare decisis, respecting judicial precedent but allowing overruling for egregiously wrong decisions causing significant harm without undue reliance disruption. CHUNK 86 ======================================= The Court should overrule Roe due to its overreach in interpreting a moral issue beyond its constitutional authority. Roe distorted the Court's role and harmed state interests. Despite stare decisis, Roe must be overruled. Casey's attempts at compromise haven't resolved the controversy. Reliance arguments for Roe are undermined, similar to past overruled precedents. CHUNK 87 ======================================= The Court overruled Plessy, influenced by societal views on marriage in Baker v. Nelson and abortion in Roe v. Wade. Obergefell v. Hodges reinforced these views. Casey v. Planned Parenthood conflicted with Roe's trimester framework and other abortion cases, challenging absolute stare decisis. Despite predictions, state laws opposing Roe persist, indicating deep societal divides. The Court must independently assess overrule potential, not solely rely on Casey's predictive judgment. CHUNK 88 ======================================= The Casey decision reaffirmed Plessy by upholding segregation. It supports overruling Roe, shifting abortion legality to state or Congress. The decision doesn't affect contraception, marriage, Griswold, Eisenstadt, Loving, or Obergefell. Some new legal issues may arise, but existing precedents remain unaffected. The Court stops deciding abortion legality and shifts moral/policy questions to the people via democratic processes. The Roe Court overstepped constitutional bounds, distorting the Court's role and damaging its reputation. CHUNK 89 ======================================= The Supreme Court, guided by constitutional neutrality, returns abortion authority to democratic processes, acknowledging passionate disagreement. Justices have addressed the issue since 1973. The Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice. This decision revisits judicial neutrality, directing abortion resolution to the people and elected officials. The case involved Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, seeking to reconsider pre-viability abortion prohibitions without overturning Roe v. Wade. CHUNK 90 ======================================= The concurring opinion argues for discarding the viability line established by Roe and Casey, emphasizing judicial restraint and rejecting a ruling unnecessary to address the case at hand. It criticizes Roe for inventing a viability rule without legislative backing and suggests that a woman's right to choose extends beyond viability, but stops short of further legislative interpretation. CHUNK 91 ======================================= The viability rule in abortion law, established by Roe and later reinforced by Casey, has been criticized for lacking strong justification and being based on outdated reasoning. Both Roe and Casey failed to convincingly argue for extending the termination of pregnancy to viability. Over time, the Court's jurisprudence has weakened this rule, as seen in cases like Gonzales v. Carhart, which expanded state interests beyond just maternal health and potential life. The viability line no longer aligns with modern objectives, such as distinguishing abortion from infanticide and upholding societal ethics. CHUNK 92 ======================================= The Supreme Court case discusses the constitutionality of abortion laws prohibiting procedures after 20 weeks due to fetal pain concerns. The viability rule, established outside typical litigation, is criticized as arbitrary and unconstitutional. While some states want to clarify abortion laws before viability, Mississippi's arguments, that the rule isn't always unconstitutional, are persuasive. The Court doesn't necessarily need to overturn Roe or Casey, merely address the current state of abortion laws. CHUNK 93 ======================================= The Court is overturning Roe and Casey, despite Mississippi initially arguing against overturning Roe, relying on the viability rule. The Court follows judicial restraint by focusing on narrower issues first, only expanding to broader questions if necessary. CHUNK 94 ======================================= Roe v. Wade established a state right to choose abortion, independent of a viability standard. The right's core is a woman's decision-making autonomy, not a pre-viability ban. Casey reaffirmed this but viability remains a separate rule, not inherent to the right. Stare decisis would remove the viability rule from Roe's foundation. CHUNK 95 ======================================= Roberts concurs in judgment but does not address the viability rule's necessity. He argues that overturning the subsidiary rule suffices for Mississippi's case, citing early abortions and legal access. Roberts notes that the 15-week ban allows most women to choose without rare exceptions. Whether to override precedent is within the court's discretion. CHUNK 96 ======================================= The Court overruled Roe and Casey, citing stare decisis and judicial restraint. A narrower decision would have been less disruptive. The decision impacts reliance interests and life planning for women. The Court references landmark overrulings like Brown v. Board of Education. CHUNK 97 ======================================= The Court suggests potentially overturning Roe v. Wade and Casey due to potential "turmoil" with existing state laws. It proposes that laws banning abortion outright still violate precedent, and those with cutoff dates under 15 weeks wouldn't be affected by the viability rule. Roberts concurs only in judgment, questioning the consistency of treating conception-to-15-weeks bans differently. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent, emphasizing Roe and Casey's protection of women's bodily autonomy. **Cite as:** 597 U.S. _ (2022) CHUNK 98 ======================================= The Supreme Court previously allowed states to regulate abortion to protect fetal life but only after fetal viability, ensuring exceptions for women's health. This balance was removed, allowing states to impose restrictions at any stage, often without exceptions. Such laws can now force women to carry pregnancies to term, regardless of consequences, affecting autonomy and rights. CHUNK 99 ======================================= A prohibition on abortion should not exempt women from death or physical harm risks. States can enforce draconian restrictions, criminalizing both abortion providers and women seeking abortions. This decision allows states to restrict interstate travel for abortions, posing severe financial and geographical challenges for women. The absence of federal intervention means nationwide prohibitions, stripping states of control and undermining women's reproductive rights and equality. CHUNK 100 ======================================= The ruling threatens reproductive rights by potentially overturning precedents like Roe and Casey, affecting bodily autonomy, contraception, and marriage rights. The majority claims these rights lack deep historical roots, raising concerns about the stability of other constitutional rights. The decision questions the rule of law by disregarding established precedents. CHUNK 101 ======================================= The majority opinion undermines judicial modesty and changes established law due to new Court composition, disregarding precedent. Roe and Casey shaped women's rights, yet the Court now departs, citing only composition changes. Dissent highlights their foundational role in individual rights and American freedoms, opposing a return to government control over private choices. CHUNK 102 ======================================= The Roe v. Wade ruling prioritized individual choice in abortion decisions, particularly in the first trimester, allowing states to regulate after that, focusing on health and safety. The Court balanced personal liberty with state interests, setting guidelines based on pregnancy stage. CHUNK 103 ======================================= The doctrine of stare decisis supports rule of law; constitutional principles must be upheld despite disagreements. The Court enforced Roe's principles through precedents. In Casey, the Court reaffirmed Roe's core principles, emphasizing women's rights to choose, grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty clause. This clause protects personal decisions on family, parenthood, and bodily integrity, including contraception. CHUNK 104 ======================================= The Supreme Court's 597 U.S. decision reaffirmed abortion rights, balancing state interests with individual choice. It upheld Roe's core that states can't prohibit abortions after viability, marking a "second life" capable of independent existence. Before viability, states could regulate to protect health and promote childbirth, ensuring informed choice but couldn't impose an undue burden on abortion seekers. CHUNK 105 ======================================= The dissent argues that Roe and Casey balanced state interests with women's rights, recognizing competing interests in abortion decisions. The majority ignores this balance, favoring state interests over individual rights, by rejecting the constitutional significance of women's autonomy in reproductive decisions. CHUNK 106 ======================================= Majority opinion states no nationwide abortion right existed in 1868. They cite early history, but it's irrelevant. Early law supported abortion before "quickening." Roe and Casey treated early vs. late abortion differently. Majority notes states banned abortion up to Roe but argues post-1868 laws don't change original constitutional text. CHUNK 107 ======================================= The majority argues that 21st-century interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment should align with its original ratifiers' views, emphasizing reproductive rights as integral to liberty. However, the dissent highlights a misstep: men, not "people," ratified the amendment, and these ratifiers failed to recognize women's equality. They denied women constitutional protections, marginalizing them to second-class citizenship. Historical precedents, like Bradwell v. State, show outdated views that have evolved, as acknowledged by Casey, recognizing constitutional amendments that reflect societal changes. CHUNK 108 ======================================= The Constitution adapts to changing circumstances, granting rights like gender equality and contraception protection over time. The Court interprets constitutional rights broadly, allowing evolution in their scope, contrary to strict historical interpretation. CHUNK 109 ======================================= The amendment ratifiers did not grant interracial marriage rights; historically viewed as unprotected like abortion. However, the 1967 Loving v. Virginia case expanded rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, prioritizing evolving interpretations grounded in constitutional principles over rigidly adhering to original views. Judges must balance constitutional tradition with historical and precedential evolution, ensuring rights adapt to new contexts without arbitrary shifts. CHUNK 110 ======================================= Casey rejected the majority's view on state interference in personal decisions, emphasizing the constitutional right to bodily integrity and family life. The majority's argument overreaches, as it disregards precedents like Roe and Casey, which upheld state limits on personal decisions. The dissent questions the majority's rationale for overturning established constitutional rights without justification. CHUNK 111 ======================================= The dissent highlights the Court's failure to acknowledge the interconnectedness of precedents on bodily autonomy, personal autonomy, and rights affecting women. It argues that leaving abortion regulation to states undermines these rights and acts against women's autonomy, rather than neutrally. CHUNK 112 ======================================= The Court protects individual rights to personal autonomy, including bodily control and medical decisions, citing precedents like Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. These cases affirm women's rights to make choices about their bodies, including pregnancy termination, highlighting significant bodily risks and necessary medical treatment. The Court upholds privacy and personal decisions in family, intimate, and procreative matters as integral to personal identity and life shaping. CHUNK 113 ======================================= Liberty includes expanding rights to formerly excluded groups, such as women and LGBTQ+ individuals. The Court has broadened these rights over time, aligning liberty with equality. Historical norms don't dictate current rights; the Fourteenth Amendment supports evolving rights, including same-sex marriage. Casey emphasized that women's equal citizenship requires reproductive rights, enabling them to shape their lives independently. CHUNK 114 ======================================= Casey linked abortion rights to contraception access, citing precedents like Griswold and Eisenstadt, emphasizing liberty from government intrusion. Roe and Casey decisions allowed women to control body choices, especially in unplanned pregnancies. The majority argues this decision doesn't affect other rights related to marriage, procreation, and family, but excludes rights like same-sex intimacy and marriage, viewing abortion as unique due to potential life termination. CHUNK 115 ======================================= The majority's approach lacks credibility; JUSTICE THOMAS's concurrence confirms this. The author of the majority opinion previously criticized Obergefell and Roe for disrupting democratic processes, implying the Court should fix these issues. BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN dissent, noting the case doesn't challenge past precedents. The majority's justification hinges on 19th-century abortion laws, sidelining the state's interest in fetal life. Instead, it focuses on whether a woman's abortion decision involves a constitutional liberty interest. The majority avoids arguing that past cases underestimated fetal life's state interest or overrated a woman's liberty interest. CHUNK 116 ======================================= The majority dismisses abortion rights as lacking in 19th-century protections, arguing it doesn't threaten other rights. However, their reasoning undermines the logic of distinguishing abortion from other rights like contraception. They offer no clear justification for their stance, risking broader implications for constitutional rights. CHUNK 117 ======================================= The dissent criticizes the majority for ignoring logical and principled progression of rights, citing same-sex marriage and contraception as precedents. They argue today's decision lacks historical grounding and threatens future rights, aiming to move moral issues from federal to state levels. The dissent highlights the inconsistency with the Court's historical reliance on evolving principles and the exclusion of marginalized voices. CHUNK 118 ======================================= The majority believes states can regulate abortion as they did in 1868. This decision strips women of agency, contradicting Roe v. Wade. Some legislators now propose restrictions on contraception. By overturning Roe and Casey, the Court abandons stare decisis, undermining legal consistency and stability. Justice Breyer dissents, emphasizing stare decisis's role in upholding legal precedent and constitutional integrity. CHUNK 119 ======================================= The U.S. Supreme Court does not easily overturn precedent, requiring strong reasons beyond mere belief in a wrong decision. Cases cited by the majority for overturning Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood do not apply due to lack of significant legal or factual change. Roe and Casey protected women's rights and equality, and stare decisis principles oppose overturning established precedents. CHUNK 120 ======================================= The majority overruled Roe and Casey based solely on disagreement, bypassing stare decisis. This undermines precedent and judicial stability, favoring judges' views over legal consistency. The "undue burden" standard is versatile, common in constitutional law, and adaptable to various contexts. --- Cite as: 597 U.S. _ (2022) 33 BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting The majority's approach facilitates radical judicial change without legal justification, prioritizing judges' views over established precedents. The "undue burden" standard, applicable across diverse legal contexts, remains reliable. CHUNK 121 ======================================= The majority overstates disagreements over the undue burden standard. The dissent highlights two main differences: Chief Justice's disagreement with June Medical about weighing abortion regulation benefits and burdens, and a minor Circuit split on applying this standard to specific state laws banning abortions for reasons like fetal abnormality. The dissent dismisses the majority's concern about legal disagreements as inevitable. The majority proposes a new standard requiring laws to have a rational basis for interests like prenatal life preservation and maternal health. CHUNK 122 ======================================= The majority discusses inconsistencies in lower courts' application of undue burden standards for parental notification laws, highlighting differences in exemptions for minors and procedural bans. There's debate over bans on certain abortion procedures and the impact of increased travel time to clinics. Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissent, questioning the state's burden on women's health and the impact on other medical procedures. The ruling raises interstate conflicts, such as travel restrictions and advertising bans. CHUNK 123 ======================================= State restrictions on abortions may harm women's access to necessary miscarriage treatments, raising constitutional concerns about interstate travel, speech, and commerce. The Court faces intensified controversies, diverging from prior predictable precedent-overruling standards. Despite invoking current disputes, the majority lacks strong arguments to override established precedent, unlike past legal changes justifying such shifts. CHUNK 124 ======================================= The majority disregards precedent without evidence of significant change, ignoring that Roe and Casey have reinforced legal support for personal rights. The Court continues to uphold precedents recognizing women's choices regarding intimate relationships and contraception. Roe and Casey underpin decisions about same-sex relationships and marriage. They persist despite no new developments undermining their validity. Pregnancy and abortion risks are significant, with bans increasing maternal mortality and costs. Access to healthcare and family leave remains inadequate. CHUNK 125 ======================================= 20% private-sector workers get paid family leave; only 8% of lower-wage workers. Racial disparities in maternal mortality reflect existing differences. Mississippi has high uninsured rates and shortages of OB-GYNs. Safe haven laws don't reduce pregnancy risks or costs. Few women choosing adoption after denied abortion. Most shoulder child-rearing costs. Safe haven laws aren't alternatives to abortion. Adoption choice is rare. Majority notes growing adoption demand but dismisses its relevance. CHUNK 126 ======================================= Ante's claim regarding sonograms isn't evaluated on new grounds but highlights Mississippi's poor state of affairs since Roe and Casey. Despite 62% unplanned pregnancies, Mississippi lacks contraceptive insurance, education on use, and supports. Medicaid eligibility is strict, leaving many without basic care, with 86% pregnancy-related deaths due to postpartum complications. Mississippi has the highest infant mortality and poor health outcomes for women and children. It's over 75 times riskier for a woman in Mississippi to carry to term than to have an abortion. CHUNK 127 ======================================= States with restrictive abortion laws also invest least in health. U.S. abortion laws are aligning with global trends of increased safe abortion access. While some U.S. states claim to be outliers, global trends show more liberal abortion policies. Over 50 countries have expanded abortion access in 25 years. The majority lacks evidence to justify its decision, maintaining Roe and Casey's core principle: women should decide pregnancy-related burdens. CHUNK 128 ======================================= West Coast Hotel and Brown v. Board of Education overturned prior precedents due to changing societal realities and laws. West Coast Hotel addressed economic realities during the Great Depression, overturning Adkins v. Children's Hospital, which invalidated state minimum-wage laws. Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, recognizing that segregation was inherently unequal and incompatible with Reconstruction Amendments. These cases illustrate why overturning the right to choose is unjustified. CHUNK 129 ======================================= The majority argues that recognizing changes since Plessy justifies overturning it. However, this is not supported by Brown's reasoning or precedents. The Court should consider broader societal understanding and individual rights rather than just a new majority's view. The dissenting justices emphasize that Brown protected fundamental rights and questioning its overruling lacks justification. CHUNK 130 ======================================= The Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade lacks justification due to unchanged societal and legal trends. While societal views on women's roles have evolved, Roe and Casey reflect these changes, emphasizing women's rights and equality. The majority's decision overlooks these developments and the reliance interests established by prior precedents. CHUNK 131 ======================================= The Supreme Court's decision threatens women's reproductive rights, undermining decades of reliance on abortion access for planning lives and economic participation. About 18% of pregnancies in the U.S. end in abortion, with many women counting on it for various life circumstances. The ruling risks destroying these plans, limiting women's roles in society and economy. CHUNK 132 ======================================= 45% of U.S. pregnancies are unplanned, with limited access to effective contraceptives. Legal barriers exist, particularly for rape and incest cases. The majority overlooks that circumstances can change during pregnancy. Women without financial means will suffer most from Roe and Casey's loss. Lower-income women experience higher unintended pregnancy rates and more often seek abortions. CHUNK 133 ======================================= States banning late-term abortions impact women's access to early care, leading to financial strain and unsafe options. Many lack means to travel or take time off work for abortions, risking pregnancy and resorting to illegal methods. Reproductive control is crucial for women's identity. High costs, particularly in Mississippi, disproportionately affect the poor, who face severe consequences from restrictions. CHUNK 134 ======================================= The Court's decision undermines women's autonomy and control over personal choices, stripping away rights upheld by Roe and Casey. This radical shift claims reliance interests are too intangible, disregarding their profound impact on women's lives. The majority's stance ignores the tangible consequences for individuals reliant on these precedents. CHUNK 135 ======================================= The majority's decision disregards the reliance interests on constitutional rights, which are central to individual and societal lives, such as the right to abortion. This approach conflicts with established legal principles and undermines the foundational nature of constitutional rights in our society. CHUNK 136 ======================================= The majority's decision undermines women's rights, disregarding Roe's and Casey's principles and precedent. It dismisses the significant consequences of reversing these rulings. The majority falsely claims to uphold legal standards, but Casey emphasized law's importance amidst controversy, which the current majority ignores. CHUNK 137 ======================================= The dissent argues that the Supreme Court should uphold its precedents, particularly Roe and Casey, to maintain legal stability and respect for the rule of law. They fear weakening stare decisis undermines legal principles and stability, calling it a "loaded weapon." The dissent highlights that the Court's decision today conflicts with longstanding legal precedents and questions its commitment to legal principle. They emphasize that the abortion decision impacts personal autonomy and equality, and argue no new justification exists for altering Roe and Casey. CHUNK 138 ======================================= States enacted abortion bans, with Mississippi leading by imposing stricter restrictions. Initially seeking to overturn Roe and Casey minimally, Mississippi later pushed for full overruling. The Supreme Court hinted at Mississippi's strategy's success, allowing Texas to ban abortions after six weeks, thereby bypassing constitutional rulings. CHUNK 139 ======================================= A narrow majority overrules Roe and Casey, allowing abortion bans from conception. This decision undermines constitutional rights and the rule of law, risking other rights like contraception and marriage. Casey emphasized stare decisis and criticized overreversing precedent for ideological shifts, warning against damaging the Court's legitimacy. CHUNK 140 ======================================= The Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Casey, disregarding prior rulings and changing precedents based on evolving doctrine. We dissent, noting this undermines fundamental rights and constitutional protections for millions of women. CHUNK 141 ======================================= The Supreme Court has revisited and modified several landmark decisions, revising earlier interpretations to reflect modern legal principles. Key cases include: - **Katz v. United States**: Expanded Fourth Amendment protections to include private communications. - **Miranda v. Arizona**: Implemented Fifth Amendment procedural safeguards for interrogations. - **Malloy v. Hogan**: Affirmed Fifth Amendment self-incrimination protection via the Fourteenth Amendment. - **Gideon v. Wainwright**: Recognized indigent defendants' right to legal counsel. - **Smith v. Allwright**: Declared unconstitutional all-white primaries. - **United States v. Darby**: Expanded Congress's Commerce Clause authority. - **Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins**: Shifted to applying state law in federal diversity cases. These decisions reflect judicial evolution and adaptation to new societal understandings. CHUNK 142 ======================================= The text outlines significant Supreme Court decisions expanding First Amendment protections, particularly for campaign speech, and evolving interpretations of rights like confrontation and due process. It discusses overruling key cases such as Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and Mapp v. Ohio, emphasizing doctrinal shifts and changing legal understandings. The text also highlights decisions regarding union dues, same-sex marriage, anti-sodomy laws, double jeopardy, and sex-based rights, driven by evolving facts and social understandings. CHUNK 143 ======================================= Classifications face scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, with precedents like Reed v. Reed and recent cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization influencing jury service and procedural rules. Overruling decisions often reflect changing societal norms, while minor cases modify precedent applications. CHUNK 144 ======================================= None of the cited cases is analogous to overruling established precedents.