Page:Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization - Court opinion draft, February 2022.pdf/58

58 Casey's "undue burden" test has proven to be unworkable. "[P]lucked from nowhere," 505 U. S., at 965 (Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting in part), it "seems calculated to perpetuate give-it-a-try litigation" before judges assigned an unwieldy and inappropriate task. Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn., 500 U. S. 507, 551 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part). Continued adherence to that standard would undermine, not advance, the "even-handed, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles." Payne, 501 U. S., at 827.

Effect on other areas of law. Roe and Casey have led to the distortion of many important but unrelated legal doctrines, and that effect provides further support for overruling those decisions. See Ramos, 590 U. S., at __ (, J., concurring) (slip op., at 8); Janus, 585 U. S., at __ (slip op., at 34).

Members of this Court have repeatedly lamented that "no legal rule or doctrine is safe from ad hoc nullification by the Court when an occasion for its application arises in a case involving state regulation of abortion." Thornburgh, 476 U. S., at 814 (O'Connor, J., dissenting); see Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U. S. 753, 785 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part); Whole Woman's Health, 579 U. S., at __ (, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1); id., at __-__ (, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 4–24, 37–43); June Medical, 591