For today, at least, the law of abortion stands undisturbed. For today, the women of this Nation still retain the liberty to control their destinies. But the signs are evident and very ominous, and a chill wind blows.

These lines come from Justice Harry A. Blackmun’s dissent in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992). In Casey, a joint plurality opinion reaffirmed what it called Roe v. Wade’s “essential holding,” but replaced Roe’s trimester framework with the “undue burden” standard and upheld several Pennsylvania abortion regulations (while striking the spousal-notification requirement). Blackmun, author of Roe, wrote separately to warn that the Court was retreating from robust constitutional protection for reproductive autonomy. His dissent frames the decision as a precarious reprieve—abortion rights surviving “for today” but endangered by the Court’s new approach and the political-judicial momentum against Roe.

Blackmun’s repetition of “For today” underscores contingency: a right that exists only at the Court’s sufferance is, in his view, already in jeopardy. By pairing “the law of abortion” with “the liberty to control their destinies,” he casts abortion not as a narrow medical issue but as a core element of personal autonomy and equal citizenship. The “chill wind” metaphor signals an approaching reversal—legal doctrine cooling toward restriction and a broader cultural-political climate turning hostile. The passage functions as both lament and warning: even when a precedent is nominally reaffirmed, doctrinal shifts (here, toward “undue burden” and greater tolerance of regulation) can hollow out the practical ability to exercise the right.