A critical distinction is identified in an article in The Atlantic echoed at msn.com, hat tip to Instapundit for the link.
It’s important to understand the question before the Supreme Court. It is not “Should American women possess a right to abortion?” but “Does the American Constitution protect abortion rights?” The distinction is of paramount importance. The Court’s job is not to determine which rights we should possess but rather the rights we do possess.
I believe Alito argues that the Constitution says nothing about abortion and thus Roe was decided wrongly. That whether or not abortion should be legal is a legislative question, not inherently judicial in nature.
This view means a variety of things which the Warren and subsequent courts found “implied” by Constitutional language may be open to similar question and perhaps overturn. It is what happens when the court has an “originalist” majority not enamored with implications and “penumbras.”
The court and the country may be in for a rocky few years. Earlier courts found a variety of supposed “rights” implied but unmentioned in the Constitution, and those in whose lives these have been important have gotten accustomed to viewing these as “federally guaranteed.”
