The Supreme Court will likely reverse Roe v. Wade when it issues its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Dobbs involves a Mississippi statute that limits abortion to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Opponents of Roe, which created a right to abortion in 1973, argue that the word "abortion" is not written in the Constitution. Neither is the word "privacy," a term noted in Roe to support the right to abortion.

The privacy right noted in Roe comes from Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 case in which a state ban on certain contraceptives was overturned by the court.

Griswold reasoned that prior court cases suggested "that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from these guarantees that help give them life and substance." Law professors of all stripes wince at such blustery wording.

Supporters of Roe argue that it has been settled law for half a century and that reversing it now would undermine women's health and stunt women's economic and social mobility.

The court must weigh fidelity to the Constitution as argued by the opponents of Roe with the call for pragmatism as argued by the supporters of Roe. The opponents have the better argument.

Mark Shea

Moodus