A US Supreme Court document published by Politico on May 2 shows that there is a majority of five high court justices ready to strike down Roe v. Wade, the historic Supreme Court decision legalizing the choice to have an abortion.

The document, labeled "1st Draft" and dated February 10, was written by Justice Samuel Alito, one of the most right-wing of the court's dominant conservative side. Alito says that Roe was wrongly decided back in 1973 and should be overruled.

The ruling would come in a case involving a new Mississippi law that limits abortion to the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. Alito's opinion goes far beyond upholding the law and seeks to eliminate the right of reproductive choice altogether.

Politico says it obtained the draft opinion "from a person familiar with the court's proceedings in the Mississippi case, along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document." After initially refusing comment on Politico's revelation, Chief Justice John Roberts admitted on May 3 that the document was "real," but cautioned that it was not a final draft.

According to Alito's draft, Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett concur with his views. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan were reportedly preparing dissents supporting the Roe precedent. Breyer has announced his retirement but remains on the court for the rest of its current term, expected to run to July this year.

Chief Justice Roberts apparently disagrees with Alito's opinion — at least in part — and some reporters have speculated that he is working behind the scenes to delete some of Alito's sweeping language and create a narrower ruling that guts Roe v. Wade but doesn't entirely overrule it.

What happens now?
The high court usually announces its most difficult rulings in late June or early July, just before breaking for summer vacation. That means there is still a month or more for the justices to haggle over language, for Roberts to try to tone down Alito's far-right rhetoric, and for the three pro-choice justices to try to limit the court's opinion as much as possible.

If they do not succeed, and the high court's final opinion looks like Alito's first draft, all federal protections for reproductive choice will be ended.

Thirteen states currently have anti-abortion laws on the books — some of them leftovers from the 1930s. They are currently unenforceable because the Roe decision trumps state law. If Roe goes away, they will immediately become enforceable again, terminating any right to reproductive choice.

Several other states are set to pass laws banning abortions — including very restrictive measures with no exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother. Again, without Roe in place, these laws will be enforceable.

In all, 26 states are said to be ready to ban abortion.

But there's even more. If Republicans gain control of the US House and Senate in the midterm elections, they could move to pass federal legislation that bans abortion nationwide. The only protections for women's rights would then be a Senate filibuster or a veto by President Biden.

Worse than it looks
While Alito's draft looks very bad for America's women, it is even worse than it looks at first glance.

In his draft, Alito implicitly challenges the doctrine of "substantive due process" enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Substantive due process means that the Constitution protects the basic rights of Americans — including rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution — from government interference.

That means that even if the framers of the Constitution didn't explicitly say that women have a right to control their own reproduction, or that same-sex couples have a right to marry, the government can't lawfully interfere with those rights.

The 14th Amendment also "federalizes" the Bill of Rights, by saying that states can't limit the rights that US citizens are entitled to. This was the constitutional basis for Brown v. Board, Lawrence v. Texas, Roe v. Wade, and a host of other decisions guaranteeing civil rights.

And that's why the right-wing has always hated the 14th Amendment.

What's on the chopping block?
In his draft opinion, Alito says that the right to reproductive choice is not a real right, since it's not enumerated in the Constitution, and not enshrined in US history.

He goes on to mention a number of key court decisions establishing what he considers fake rights: Loving v. Virginia (the right to marry someone of a different race); Griswold v. Connecticut (the right to obtain contraceptives); Skinner v. Oklahoma (the right to be protected from forced sterilization); Lawrence v. Texas (the right to have sex with someone of the same sex); and Obergefell v. Hodges (the right to same-sex marriage).

Alito explicitly says that his opinion in the Mississippi case should not be automatically applied to other similar cases like those cited. But — and this is a big but — he and his fellow right-wing justices also promised the Senate Judiciary Committee that they would respect judicial precedent in Roe if they were confirmed to the high court.

In fact, many anti-choice supporters of Alito's opinion interviewed by the media since the draft was leaked have stated explicitly that their next target after reproductive choice is marriage equality. Alito's legal reasoning in this case certainly will give them a lot of ammunition.