Planned Parenthood v. Casey Says Some Weird Stuff About Stare Decisis

I am, obviously, a fan of the result in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, at least insofar as the "result" is "we're not overturning Roe v. Wade." (And, the result is precisely that, pretty damn far; the details are relatively inconsequential.) But I'm a fan of the result because I'm a fan of the result in Roe itself. Lots of people aren't, of course, and you get the sense that Kennedy, at the very least, and probably also O'Connor are among them. They, of course, are two of the three co-authors of the plurality opinion in the case, along with Souter. And that plurality opinion is not mainly remembered for its discussion of the constitutional law of abortion, because, well, it doesn't really discuss that all that much, no doubt because a majority of those writing it didn't necessarily agree on the merits with the reasoning of Roe. So instead they talked about stare decisis. And boy do they say some weird stuff.