Alito is asking Rikelman about the historian whose work was the basis of Roe. Rikelman won't name or discuss the historian Roe relied on. Ramesh has your must-read on what Alito is talking about.
Kavanaugh: Other side would say core problem here is that Court has picked sides on matter on which they say Constitution is neutral. How would you respond?
R: Same arguments were made in Casey. Not neutral for Court to regard Constitution as neutral on issue.
Rikelman was explicitly asked for her best case against the Mississippi law, and the best she had to offer was that we can’t allow “the state to take control of a woman's body.” It is impossible for defenders of Roe and abortion to acknowledge what a law against abortion actually does, which is to protect the right to life of the unborn child — not “take control of a woman’s body.”
Rikelman can't name a single historical case that supports her position.
Rikelman invokes purported common-law “liberty” to end pregnancy before quickening.
“What's your best case?” That is always a question a lawyer should be able to answer with a citation. Rikelman, asked for precedents on common law protection of abortion, gives an argument instead of a case citation.
Alito asks about history of laws on abortion in 1868.
Justice Thomas asks Rikelman what part of the Constitution supports a right to abortion. The best she can cone up with his the Court's “interpretation” of liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment. This doesn't pass muster for an originalist.
Rikelman asserts that abortion was long considered a right under common law, but in fact common law has long protected the right to life under the unborn child. Nearly every state at the time of Roe had laws prohibiting abortion.
As Ramesh notes, both sides seem to agree that the only way that Mississippi law can be upheld is to overturn Roe/Casey. But Roberts seems to at least be entertaining some middle ground. His questions about whether Mississippi's 15-week ban still offers women a sufficient period of choosing, and citing similar international laws, suggest that he's at least exploring possibility of some sort of standard that would shorten the time frame from viability, while drawing a new line. Obvious disclaimers apply about reading too much into oral arguments, especially given Roberts' history.