In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, finding that a woman had a Constitutional right to an abortion. After that, a series of cases would further qualify that initial ruling. In the seminal case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the Supreme Court overruled the precedent established in Roe v. Wade and noted that "the right [to an abortion] is neither deeply rooted in the nation's history nor an essential component of "ordered liberty." Before overruling precedent, the Supreme Court usually considers practical "factors that seek to foster the rule of law while balancing the costs and benefits to society of reaffirming or overruling a prior holding." Such factors include Quality of Reasoning, Workability, Inconsistency with Related Decisions, Changed Understanding of Relevant Facts, and Reliance. In the Dobbs decision, did the Supreme Court sidestep its usual considerations when it overruled its prior precedent? Why or Why not? (Hint: You are NOT being asked to debate whether abortion should be legal. Additionally, you are NOT being asked to discuss the issue from a religious standpoint. You should focus on the concept of stare decisis and the precedential effect of the Court's ruling as it relates to judicial consistency and efficiency.) Address whether you agree with the conclusions of your peers or not. Ask probing questions that are specific to each post to which you respond.