Reevaluating the Constitutionality of Abortion: Can U.S. Jurisprudence Truly Protect Womens Interests in a Post-Roe America?

This Article examines the U.S. Supreme Court's evolving constitutional frameworks for abortion rights. It traces the shift from Roe v. Wade's privacy-based rationale to Planned Parenthood v. Casey's undue burden standard. While Roe and Casey attempted to balance state interests with women's reproductive autonomy, they ultimately fell short of fully addressing the unique social, economic, and psychological burdens women face. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization introduced a historical tradition approach, rejecting this balancing test and returning regulatory power to states. This decision undermines women's autonomy and complicates democratic access, particularly for marginalized groups. Recognizing the limitations of Roe and Casey in fully protecting women's equality and critiquing Dobbs' unbalanced historical focus, this Article proposes a new framework that prioritizes women's needs. Drawing on international perspectives, such as Japan's emphasis on family and societal welfare, it argues that centering women's lived experiences, including the often-overlooked burdens of motherhood, is essential for crafting a reproductive rights model that balances individual autonomy with social equity