Abstract
This article examines the influence of Justice Antonin Scalia’s U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. Justice Scalia was critical of using foreign law in constitutional interpretation, particularly concerning moral issues like abortion. Scalia argued that comparative approaches could introduce ideological biases, undermining the objectivity of constitutional analysis. In Dobbs, the majority overlooked the comparative constitutional law inquiry. They relied on the precedent set by Glucksberg v. Washington, arguing that the right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade is not a fundamental constitutional right because it lacks support in the Constitution’s text, as well as in the nation’s history and tradition. Nevertheless, the majority did not adopt Glucksberg's method of comparative inquiry. The majority in Dobbs could have utilized the Glucksberg approach to examine data from various jurisdictions regarding abortion. Critics argue that the Dobbs decision distances the United States from global constitutional trends and practices related to abortion rights. By engaging in comparative inquiry, the Court's majority had the opportunity to assess factors such as abortion restrictions, the lateness of permitting abortion, and state interests in fetal protection in different jurisdictions. Unfortunately, the majority missed these opportunities, resulting in a weakened constitutional debate.