Page:Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.pdf/197

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
50
DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION

Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., dissenting

majority ignores, as explained above, that some women decide to have an abortion because their circumstances change during a pregnancy. See supra, at 49. Human bodies care little for hopes and plans. Events can occur after conception, from unexpected medical risks to changes in family circumstances, which profoundly alter what it means to carry a pregnancy to term. In all these situations, women have expected that they will get to decide, perhaps in consultation with their families or doctors but free from state interference, whether to continue a pregnancy. For those who will now have to undergo that pregnancy, the loss of Roe and Casey could be disastrous.

That is especially so for women without money. When we "count[] the cost of [Roe's] repudiation" on women who once relied on that decision, it is not hard to see where the greatest burden will fall. Casey, 505 U. S., at 855. In States that bar abortion, women of means will still be able to travel to obtain the services they need.[1] It is women who cannot afford to do so who will suffer most. These are the women most likely to seek abortion care in the first place. Women living below the federal poverty line experience unintended pregnancies at rates five times higher than higher income women do, and nearly half of women who seek abortion care live in households below the poverty line. See Brief for 547 Deans 7; Brief for Abortion Funds and Practical Support Organizations as Amici Curiae 8 (Brief for Abortion Funds).


  1. This statement of course assumes that States are not successful in preventing interstate travel to obtain an abortion. See supra, at 3, 36-37. Even assuming that is so, increased out-of-state demand will lead to longer wait times and decreased availability of service in States still providing abortions. See Brief for State of California et al. as Amici Curiae 25-27. This is what happened in Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada last fall after Texas effectively banned abortions past six weeks of gestation. See United States v. Texas, 595 U.S. __, __ (2021) (Sotomayor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (slip op., at 6).