This could go back to Roe, which was based on an absurd extension of a non-existent Constitutional right. It could even be used to overturn the oft-abused “public accommodation” provisions of Brown vs. Board, which is founded on the refutable notion that “separate is inherently unequal.”
A lot of marxist oxen could be gored.
What about the opinion in which Kennedy provided the crucial vote in Oberfell v. Hodges?
Yep. See Scalia's scathing dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
The Court's reliance upon stare decisis can best be described as contrived. It insists upon the necessity of adhering not to all of Roe, but only to what it calls the "central holding." It seems to me that stare decisis ought to be applied even to the doctrine of stare decisis, and I confess never to have heard of this new, keep-what-you-want-and-throw-away-the-rest version. I wonder whether, as applied to Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), for example, the new version of stare decisis would be satisfied if we allowed courts to review the constitutionality of only those statutes that (like the one in Marbury) pertain to the jurisdiction of the courts. ...The Court's description of the place of Roe in the social history of the United States is unrecognizable. Not only did Roe not, as the Court suggests, resolve the deeply divisive issue of abortion; it did more than anything else to nourish it, by elevating it to the national level, where it is infinitely more difficult to resolve.