https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... ioners.pdf
Coverage: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/c ... anization/pg.14 wrote:This Court Should Overrule Its Precedents Subjecting Abortion Restrictions
To Heightened Scrutiny.
This Court’s abortion precedents depart from a
sound understanding of the Constitution. In Roe v.
Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and Planned Parenthood
of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833
(1992), this Court held that abortion is a right specially protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and
so laws restricting it must withstand heightened scrutiny. Casey described Roe’s “essential holding,” which
the lower courts thought dispositive here, to include a
rule that, “[ b]efore viability, the State’s interests are
not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion.” 505 U.S. at 846; see App.6a-13a; App.43a, 47a48a.
This Court should overrule Roe and Casey. Stare
decisis is “at its weakest” with constitutional rulings,
Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2177
(2019), and the case for overruling here is overwhelming. Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong. They have
proven hopelessly unworkable. They have inflicted
profound damage. Decades of progress have overtaken them. Reliance interests do not support retaining them. And nothing but a full break from those
cases can stem the harms they have caused.