Leaked draft Supreme Court abortion decision would overturn Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court is poised to overturn the constitutionally protected right to abortion ensured by the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade decision, according to a leaked initial draft of the new opinion obtained by Politico.

The draft is written by Justice Samuel Alito, with the concurrence of at least four other conservative members of the Supreme Court.

“We hold that gnaws and Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote in the 98-page draft decision, which relates to Mississippi’s strict new abortion law, according to the report published Monday night.

The draft opinion referenced the 1992 ruling by the high court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which further cemented the constitutional protections for women.

“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” the justice wrote in the draft published by Politico.

Alito also wrote, “gnaws was egregiously wrong from the start,” the report said.

CNBC has been unable to confirm the authenticity of the draft opinion, which Politico said had been circulated among the justices in February, and to which the court’s three liberal members, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, are writing dissents.

It is unclear if there have been subsequent changes to the draft by Alito since it first circulated.

The draft opinion, if formally issued by the court before its term ends in about two months, would leave it to individual states to set any restrictions on when and how a woman could terminate their pregnancy.

It also would be a monumental victory for religious conservatives, who for decades have pushed states to adopt laws restricting abortion rights, and to get the Supreme Court to undo the Roe and Casey rulings.

But the news outlet noted that Supreme Court draft opinions are not set in stone, and that justices sometimes change their positions on a case after a copy of a draft is circulated among them.

Politico also noted that “no draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term.”

The highly respected Supreme Court news site SCOTUSblog tweeted: “It’s impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.”

Politico’s executive editor, Dafna Linzer, wrote in an editor’s note that “after an extensive review process, we are confident of the authenticity of the draft.”

“This unprecedented view into the justices’ deliberations is plainly news of great public interest,” she wrote.

A Supreme Court spokeswoman declined to comment to CNBC on the Politico report.

Alito’s draft ruling came in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case centering on a Mississippi law that would ban almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

Lower federal courts had blocked the law on the grounds that it violated the legal protections established by the Roe and Casey decisions.

Those rulings together protect abortion before the point of fetal viability — around 24 weeks of gestation — and require that laws regulating abortion not pose an “undue burden.”

In oral arguments before the high court in December, the liberal justices expressed serious fears about the consequences of the court — which had already become a flashpoint for controversy and was facing all-time low approval from the public — reversing decades of precedent on perhaps the most divisive issue in American politics.

“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wondered aloud during those arguments. “I don’t see how it is possible,” she said.

In the draft opinion, as reported, Alito wrote, “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

“Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage,” Alito wrote, according to Politico.

He continued, according to the news outlet: “But abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged because it destroys what those decisions called ‘fetal life’ and what the law now before us describes as an ‘unborn human being.'”