Rolling Back Roe v. Wade Is a Conservative Blueprint to Strip Away Other Fundamental Rights

From the beginning, Roe has largely rested on a constitutional right to privacy, not an explicit guarantee of reproductive autonomy, leaving it open to reinterpretation and erosion. Liberal lawmakers and reproductive rights organizations often treated the decision as a fixed landmark rather than a legal sandcastle at the water’s edge. When the Supreme Court narrowed Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), replacing its trimester framework with an “undue burden” standard, abortion opponents saw an opportunity, but abortion-rights activists largely avoided legislative fights to codify abortion access. The Clinton Administration, while rhetorically pro-choice, focused on “safe, legal, and rare” as their leading messaging, reinforcing the notion that abortion is shameful instead of pursuing a more powerful message of it being a fundamental healthcare right. This reticence has since proved to be costly, both politically and for those impacted by these legislative failures.

By failing to embed reproductive rights into more explicit statutory protections at the federal level, advocates left the door open for a conservative judiciary to dismantle Roe incrementally. At the same time, the coordinated anti-abortion apparatus built a robust legal and political infrastructure that was waiting for a chance to swoop in. Organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom and the Thomas More Society crafted model legislation—like trigger laws—which were designed to activate immediately upon Roe’s reversal. These laws, paired with aggressive prosecutorial tactics, transformed abortion from a constitutional right into a criminal offense across many states almost overnight. Simultaneously, conservative legal strategists targeted the judiciary itself, understanding that the long game was not simply winning in statehouses but targeting lower courts and reshaping the Supreme Court. The Federalist Society’s influence in vetting and promoting judges who are openly hostile to reproductive rights has been an integral part of this project.  Through successive Republican administrations, these appointments have stacked the bench with jurists willing to reject precedent in favor of originality and textual interpretations that dismiss established privacy rights, resulting in a fractured legal landscape where abortion access is dependent on geography, class, and the local political determination to confront this assault on women’s healthcare. Democratic lawmakers primarily leveraged abortion to push for donations, and their failure to pass comprehensive legal protections has left millions vulnerable and facing an uncertain future.

The current crisis demands a renewed legal strategy that goes well beyond defending Roe as it was, and instead centers on reproductive freedom as a fundamental and enforceable right, not one rooted in privacy but in the broader guarantees of equality and healthcare access. What this will require is robust federal legislation, like the Women’s Health Protection Act, which is backed by a judiciary committed to upholding these rights. Without these measures, the rollback of reproductive autonomy will not only continue but will serve as the blueprint for dismantling other rights once thought to be secure. The latest example is same-sex marriage, with the Supreme Court set to consider a pivotal case that could challenge the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision. The legal petition being brought forward by former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is being supported by the conservative legal group Liberty Counsel. If this case is formally considered, legal experts warn that, at the very least, the results could have profound implications for same-sex marriage rights in the United States.

For the sake of the health and welfare of millions of Americans, this moment demands less complacency and more direct action. It requires political clarity which affirms that bodily autonomy and human dignity are inseparable. In this ongoing battle, the legal community, activists, and lawmakers face a stark choice: either accept the incremental erosion of women’s fundamental rights, or mobilize to enshrine reproductive rights in a way that will withstand political shifts and cynical judicial reinterpretation.