On Due Burdens

The Supreme Court Building in Washington D.C., August 5, 2021 (Brent Buterbaugh/National Review)
When Roe is finally gone, our obligations to each other should point the way forward.

NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLE T his week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which involves a Mississippi law restricting abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. It may be the most significant abortion case in decades, and will compel the Court to decide whether to retain, reform, or renounce its precedents on the subject — that is, its rule against legislation imposing an “undue burden” on the practice of abortion.

As a matter of basic jurisprudence, and even just as a way of propping up the incoherent and pernicious Roe v. Wade precedent that underlies it,

To Read the Full Story

Something to Consider

If you enjoyed this article, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS. Members get all of our content on the site including the digital magazine and archives, no paywalls or content meters, an advertising-minimal experience, and unique access to our writers and editors (through conference calls, social media groups, and more). And importantly, NRPLUS members help keep NR going.

If you enjoyed this article and want to see more premium content like this, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS.


Become a Member


The Latest