Here is a good essay by Rick Garnett entitled “Rehnquist’s Reservations and the Future of Roe.” Garnett argues that that the Court ought to follow the approach taken by Justice Rehnquist in his dissent and Roe and by Chief Justice Rehnquist in his dissent in Casey.
Here is Garnett’s conclusion:
“the Court in Dobbs should clearly and candidly overrule Roe. Doing so would be entirely consistent with both the judicial role and the stare decisis principle, correctly understood. Roe was wrongly decided, its reasoning was unconvincing, its attempted re-working in Casey was unsuccessful, its asserted factual premises were and are flimsy, it has distorted both constitutional doctrine and American political life, its persistence has undermined rather than shored up the Court’s institutional legitimacy and place in our constitutional structure, and its overdue repudiation would not unsettle legitimate expectations or reliance interests.
Rehnquist insisted, correctly, that an “intensely divisive” ruling or case gains no special protections against critical examination. Quite the contrary: “The Judicial Branch derives its legitimacy, not from following public opinion, but from deciding by its best lights whether legislative enactments of the popular branches of Government comport with the Constitution.” That the country is “divided,” nearly 50 years after Roe, on the question of the morality of abortion and about its regulation confirms that the decision was an overreach and should be overruled. The Dobbs case provides an excellent opportunity, and Chief Justice Rehnquist provided a clear model, for doing so.”