Intended consequences: the fall of Roe v. Wade

This chapter contextualizes the approach developed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Service in broader debates about history, tradition, and sex equality. Dobbs held that the Constitution did not recognize a right to abortion because such a right was not deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition. By tracing conflicting ideas of history and tradition in past jurisprudence, the chapter shows that an approach rooted in history and tradition need not delegitimize concerns about sex equality, but in choosing to frame history and tradition as hidebound, the Supreme Court set jurisprudence on unenumerated rights and sex equality on a different course. The Court echoed arguments raised over the course of decades by the antiabortion movement and called into question the validity of any number of rights tied to sex equality, from those involving birth control to procreation and intimacy.