Today marks 49 years since the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade that the Constitution of the United States protects a woman's liberty to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy. Sadly, this may be the last year that right exists.

How does that happen? How does a constitutional right that has been recognized for almost half a century suddenly disappear?

The answer, sadly, is politics. And that, I’m afraid, raises huge concerns not only about the future of a woman’s right to choose, but for the protection of constitutional rights generally as well as for the future of the Supreme Court.

Last year Texas adopted a law that bans most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. That law clearly violates the constitutional protection established in Roe. But Texas went ahead with the law, knowing that the composition of the Supreme Court had changed and that thanks to political maneuvering by Mitch McConnell in the Senate, a new majority of justices were opposed to Roe.

And sure enough, so far the Court has allowed Texas to enforce the law while it is considering the law’s constitutionality and preparing a final decision. If the Court decides to uphold the law and overturn Roe v. Wade, it will turn back the clock on a women’s right to make an important medical decision without government interference. No right can be more basic to an individual’s privacy than what to do with their body.

Moreover, the Texas law authorizes individuals to enforce the abortion restrictions by bringing private civil actions against anyone who assists a woman in getting an abortion, including paying or insuring an abortion, driving the woman to the clinic, sharing information about her constitutional rights, or holding her hand. In essence, the Texas law deputizes and incentivizes any person to act as a vigilante to deny women the right to choose, and offers a $10,000 bounty plus attorney's fees if they succeed in court.

The consequences of this law are sweeping and dangerous. Which constitutional rights might states deny next? And consider the effect of deputizing private citizens to thwart constitutional rights that become politically unpopular.

Finally, should the Supreme Court reject almost 50 years of established law simply because of a change in the Court’s composition, it raises serious concerns for the Court’s credibility. The Constitution guarantees lifetime appointments to Supreme Court justices and other federal judges in order to allow them to make sometimes difficult decisions without having to worry about getting reelected. But in exchange for lifetime tenure, the courts are expected to be nonpartisan and not allow political considerations to influence their judicial decisions.

But if the only reason the Supreme Court decides to eliminate a long-held constitutional right is because its political makeup has changed, it would be hard-pressed to avoid the appearance that it is acting on a partisan basis. And that could seriously jeopardize the Court’s standing, credibility, and independence in the future.

I stand with the women of Texas and throughout the nation, and with those who value the Constitution, and urge the Supreme Court to continue to protect the freedom of women to choose.

- Dave