A number of questions from the justices focused on the principle of stare decisis, a Latin phrase roughly meaning “to stand by things that have been decided,” and understood to mean that the court generally stands by its own precedent.

Arguing her case before the Supreme Court, Julie Rikelman, representing the abortion clinic challenging the Mississippi law, framed adoption as a burdensome and unrealistic option — but Justice Barrett offered another perspective

In the cases of California v. Texas and Texas v. California, the court will consider whether the law should be struck down if its “individual mandate” was effectively nullified by Congress in 2017.

Though the landmark abortion precedent may be on its way out in the wake of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, struggles at the federal and state level could undercut pro-life momentum.