Opinion of the Court
of the voters who cast ballots.[1]
3
Unable to show concrete reliance on Roe and Casey themselves, the Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would "threaten the Court's precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights." Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 26 (citing Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965)). That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the Casey plurality recognized, "[a]bortion is a unique act" because it terminates "life or potential life." 505 U. S., at 852; see also Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is "inherently different from marital intimacy," "marriage," or "procreation"). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.
IV
Having shown that traditional stare decisis factors do not weigh in favor of retaining Roe or Casey, we must address one final argument that featured prominently in the Casey plurality opinion.
The argument was cast in different terms, but stated simply, it was essentially as follows. The American people's belief in the rule of law would be shaken if they lost respect for this Court as an institution that decides important cases based on principle, not "social and political pressures." Casey, 505 U. S., at 865. There is a special danger that the
- ↑ Dep't of Commerce, U. S. Census Bureau, Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2020, Table 4b, Reported Voting and Registration, by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin, for States: November 2020, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-585.html.
