The Supreme Court has upheld the Mississippi law at the heart of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, and, in doing so, overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The seismic decision means that abortion is now a political matter. The states will decide how to handle abortion without federal judicial restraint. California and New York already protect abortion and will keep doing so, while Texas will likely restrict or ban the procedure. Expect all fifty states to act soon.

The majority upheld the law, which limits abortion after 15 weeks, in a 6-3 vote. Justice Alito, who penned the opinion, sings faithfully from the originalist hymnal. He reasons that Roe and Casey were improperly decided because the Constitution does not address the matter of abortion explicitly. While he acknowledges the Court has recognized some implied rights through the Ninth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, abortion does not fit the criteria normally associated with either source. The right to an abortion is not rooted in our history and tradition, and it is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. In fact, Alito argues, the right to regulate abortion is deeply rooted, and states have a long history of laws surrounding the procedure (as an appendix demonstrates). In essence, Alito assumes the existence of substantive due process and finds Roe and Casey wanting. Alito concludes by arguing the cases cannot be salvaged on the doctrine of stare decisis alone.

Justice Thomas concurs, and raises the stakes. Thomas challenges substantive due process analysis in general, and argues that Roe‘s foundation, the right to privacy most notably developed in Griswold, is shaky. He believes the Court should reconsider Griswold (the right of married people to contraception), Lawrence (the right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts), and Obergefell (the right to same-sex marriage). These precedents exalt “judges as the expense of the People from whom they derive their authority.” Expect Thomas’s opinion to generate the most heat, for regardless of its constitutional merit, it provides Democrats with a ready-made way to frighten voters.

Justice Kavanaugh also concurs, but charts a different path. Kavanaugh discusses the Court’s neutrality, the importance of precedent, and why the Court was right to overturn Roe and Casey. Still, the Dobbs decision does not endanger other lines of cases. Kavanaugh specifically references Griswold, Loving, and Obergefell. “Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.”

Chief Justice Roberts was the most interesting voter in this decision. Oral arguments made it clear Roberts was searching for a middle ground approach in Dobbs. Once denied that as on option, given the firmness of the opinion that garnered five votes, Roberts supported the outcome, but differs dramatically. Roberts believes the decision is hasty and unnecessary, primarily because the facts of the case did not require the Court to consider Roe and Casey. Those cases, according to Roberts, needlessly connected the state’s interest in protecting potential life to fetal viability. Mississippi’s statute challenged this notion by prohibiting abortion after fifteen weeks, but did not involve the right to abortion itself. Roberts defines his preferred restraint plainly. “If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.” In the end, he agrees with the majority’s decision to uphold the Mississippi law, but not the over-turning of Roe and Casey, which would make those 5-4 decisions.

The dissent is jointly authored by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The argument is expected in some ways. They couch the majority’s decision as a threat to women’s rights in general. They also warn that states will be able to criminalize abortion for not only doctors, but women, and that such legislation “can turn neighbor against neighbor.” They particularly focus on the difficulties of the majority’s federalist approach. While some states will protect abortion, and many women will simply drive or fly to one of those states to get the procedure, but “women lacking financial resources will suffer from today’s decision.” They also highlight Thomas’s concurring opinion as evidence of things to come. “And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work.”

As a pro-life, evangelical Christian, this is a moment to rejoice. The American right to abortion, which has resulted in the death of 60 million unborn children, has been a stain on our culture. The Dobbs decision has removed the constitutional right, but it does not resolve abortion as an issue.

As a matter of policy, we will end up with legal abortion in many states. Those states will become destinations for abortion tourism. States that prohibit abortion will have to answer some thorny questions. What penalties are appropriate for doctors who provide abortion or women who procure an abortion? Will exceptions exist? The Roe Court famously over-defined health as an exception. How will pro-life states define dangers to the mother’s life? How will sanctuary cities in red states be handled? How will significant, but liberal, companies in conservative states react to the state laws?

In the short term, expect Democrats to ramp up discussions of court-packing, the abolition of the filibuster, and the disregard of the Court’s ruling (both here and in Bruen). There will be tremendous pressure on Congress to codify abortion rights at the federal level, which would almost surely require the disposal of the filibuster. There is little likelihood these things will happen, but everything will be tried.