The Court doesn't decide whether that means they are subject to an "undue burden" test (as under Planned Parenthood v. Casey) or whether there is no right to abortion under the state constitution.
Some fans are now souring on her legacy.
Big rulings are coming soon on school choice, guns, and abortion.
The Biden Administration is apparently considering a range of responses should te Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.
Tensions won’t simmer down until Americans stop fearing power in the hands of enemies.
Plus: Michigan prisons ban Spanish and Swahili dictionaries, a win against New York's ban on "unauthorized" legal advice, and more...
Questions about the scope of federal power will remain.
An assessment of claims that Justice Alito's draft opinion rests on historical error, provides no meaningful basis for distinguishing abortion from other unenumerated rights, and forecloses constitutional protection of the mother's life.
This has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.
The former Associate Justice joins those condemning the leak of a draft opinion.
A prominent progressive law professor challenges some of the prevailing orthodoxy on Roe, Dobbs, and Supreme Court precedent.
Anti-abortion interstate travel bans would have multiple constitutional defects.
Without citing any constitutional authority to dictate state abortion policies, the bill would have overridden regulations that have been upheld or have yet to be tested.
Liberal states don't want to treat abortion as a personal, private choice either. Instead, blue state policy makers want to spend tax dollars subsidizing and promoting it.
The last 50 years have been marked by a remarkably stable social consensus balancing the rights of women and fetuses. Let's not throw that away.
Plus: Texas' social media law goes back into effect, inflation worries voters, and more...
Americans cannot be neatly divided into two sides, and they do not necessarily understand the implications of Roe v. Wade.
The abortion precedent has faced withering criticism, including damning appraisals by pro-choice legal scholars, for half a century.
The answer is probably "no." But the federal government could more easily ban such transactions.
Plus: ruminations on public health, misinformation, and media literacy
Tax loopholes for corporations end up making it easier for politicians like Rubio to meddle in private decision making.
The constitutional scholar on abortion, Sam Alito, and the future of federalism
Plus: Elon Musk's plans for Twitter, officials want to tax NFTs, and more...
Understanding state regulatory powers at the time of the founding.
Stop government interference in reproduction, medical decisions, gun ownership, drug use, and more.
There is much, much less in the leaked draft than meets the eye
The justice overlooks the long American tradition of pharmacological freedom and the dubious constitutional basis for federal bans.
The forgotten abortion politics of the pre-Roe era
Plus: Lawsuit against Twitter can move forward, antitrust bills targeting Big Tech falter, and more...
For libertarians who see unborn babies as innocent rights-bearing individuals, reducing the number of lives ended by abortion brings us closer to our credo.
That fact doesn't necessarily justify overruling Roe. Depending on how it's viewed, the history of such reversals may even counsel against further such moves.
Atlantic writer Jerusalem Demsas argues that blue states can't give "refuge" to people fleeing abortion restrictions if they don't cut back on zoning restrictions that lead to sky-high housing costs.
Various experts, including co-blogger Josh Blackman and myself, discuss whether the draft opinion would threaten other constitutional rights, if adopted by the Court.
The answer to this important question is highly uncertain. I tentatively predict a significant, but still modest, increase in abortion-driven migration.
Does returning decisions about abortion to the states increase liberty or shrink it?
Although recent polls show a majority thinks the abortion precedent should be preserved, some respondents seem confused about what that would mean.
Fewer Americans would be forced to live under a legal regime, imposed from on high, that is contrary to their convictions on a matter of life and death.
Plus: How abortion used to be less partisan, NFT sales have plummeted, and more...
Abortion is likely to remain legal in most states, and workarounds will mitigate the effects of bans.
Under current Supreme Court precedent, the answer is probably "yes." But that precedent might not hold, thanks in part to Clarence Thomas.
If the leaker's identity is ever revealed, he or she will face serious professional and reputational sanctions. There's no need to wish for criminal punishments too.
Gorsuch just penned an important pro-LGBT decision two years ago. Americans are largely not interested in relitigating this issue.
The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions.
But the leaked opinion is not “the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”
Plus: Boston rebuked for rejecting Christian flag, Google will remove more personal information, and more...
The Pharmacy Access Act is good policy stuck in legislative limbo.
Plus: The end of travel mask mandates, pundits out of touch with how normies use social media, and more...
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
