Here we go, people: Roe and Casey have been overturned.

There is now a series of barricades at the Supreme Court. 

SCOTUS has officially overturned Roe vs. Wade and Casey vs. Planned Parenthood.

Politico has obtained a draft of the final opinion of the case.

The decision, according to the draft, will be 5-4.  It appears Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan join Roberts in dissent.

EDIT TO ADD 8:55 PM PDT:  Roberts will only dissent in part.  He would like to see the line moved to Mississippi's current 15 weeks.

Unexpectedly, it appears Samuel Alito writes the decision, which fully repudiates the 1973 Roe decision and it's 1992 counterpart in Casey.

(Many felt that Amy Coney Barrett would write the decision, as did I.)

Politico notes these highlights:

1) The Constitution does not refer to abortion in any way, hence there is no Constitutional provision to protect it.

My Note:  This would probably also mean a complete repudiation of the bedrock of the Roe decision, in that there is no Constitutional mention of the concept of privacy either -- this would also allow the Court to reverse Loving, the Texas Sodomy Decision, and Obergefell.

2) Unexpectedly (and I also believe against the Court's precedent in Obergefell), this decision WILL return the question to the States.

My note:  I fully expected a 50-state illegality, under the same Establishment Clause protections (that if a fetus is an unborn person with innate Constitutional right not to be aborted, the Establishment Clause applies there, as it did in Obergefell).  This almost certainly indicates that, once a sufficiently-religious right-wing party can get an Obergefell reversal to the Court, the Court is prepared to reverse that as well.

3) Roe imposed the same "highly restrictive" (pro-abortion) "regime on the entire Nation".

My note:  Which would completely make sense under the Establishment Clause.  To go the other direction cannot punt this question to the States, but must grant a fetus the same right to "life" in California it has in Arkansas, as an example.  That this decision, apparently, does not do this, indicates the Court is prepared to revoke similarly imposed rights in other cases.

4) The punishment of abortion as murder is correct common law since the inception of this country until 1973.

My note:  This clause basically opens the door to the prosecution of anyone involved in an abortion, as a concept of murder.  And how anyone, given that concept, does not go back to the Court and question how any state can actually allow abortion when others see it first-degree and perhaps capital murder, is beyond any semblance of my comprehension.

5) "Our nation's historical understanding of ordered liberty" allows this to be punted to the States.

My note:  Why?  Especially given previous court precedent (which it now certainly implies will be revoked, first chance SCOTUS gets), does this mean that the physical geographical state of the fetus' mother determines what rights the fetus gets, if any?  Why, then, did this same court rule otherwise in decisions like Obergefell?  You now have question as to whether one state can actually sanction, as murder, an abortion performed in a legal state on and at the behest of the mother from a state where it is illegal.  It would appear that question is answered in the affirmative, if the mother is living in a state where abortion is illegal.  You have now stated that, contrary to other court opinion, neither fetus NOR mother has Establishment Clause protection.

6) The revocation is meant to be the final Constitutional word on abortion, because this Court believes this is the only way it can be settled correctly, stare decisis be damned.

7) The Court points to other decisions similarly revoked.

My Note:  And, IMODO, points that this Court will gladly add to that number.  Obergefell and Texas Sodomy probably go next, and a Texas Sodomy reversal probably eventually reverses Loving.

8) Casey called on the sides to close the debate and closed the door on the anti-abortion movement improperly.

My Note:  The Constitution is nothing more than an imposition of rights against the majority toward the minority, lest the minority be ostracized at minimum and murdered at maximum.  Most of the highest-level civil rights discussions in this country are impositions, not rights already granted.   This is a tradition stemming back to the 1868 ratification of the 14th Amendment -- a point which many Rightists believe upon that the country was lost.

9) The Court cannot bring a final end to this, though it desires to (See #6).

My Note:  And therein, though not quite to the extent I felt it would, is the true matter of this decision.  The Conservative Court will use it's majority, even sans Roberts, to reimpose many of the same limitations, as they and their political heralds were voted into office to do.

This decision is basically not only a reversal of Roe and Casey, but nullifies any future attempt to impose rights under the Establishment Clause on states and persons unwilling to accept them.  This Court must now reverse Obergefell and Texas Sodomy, using this Roe reversal as precedent.

10) The Court disavows any authority to have knowledge on how society will rue this reversal, nor to have it influence the decision.

My take:  And there's your reversal of Obergefell -- for, though I believe correctly, that is EXACTLY what the Court did in Obergefell by imposing it as a 50-state situation.

The Court knew what would happen if gay marriage was thrown to the States, and let that influence it's decision.  This decision throws the barn door wide to reverse every meaningful civil and human rights imposition on the right wing of this country over the last 60 or so years.