(Reuters] – On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Washington. They focused on a Mississippi law prohibiting abortions after fifteen weeks. It is a case that may lead to a major rollback in abortion rights in America. These are key points from the oral argument.

SCOTT STEVART, MISSISSIPPI SOLICITOR GENERAL

Concerning the landmark Supreme Court cases that recognized abortion rights in 1973/92, “Roe V. Wade” and Planned Parenthood (v. Casey), these two Supreme Court rulings haunt our nation. They are not supported by the Constitution. They do not belong in the history of our country or its traditions. They are a threat to democracy. They have poisoned law. They have prevented compromise. They’ve held this court in the middle of an ongoing political conflict for 50 years. They still stand today, 50 years later. This court is the only one that recognizes the right to terminate a person’s life.

ELIZABETH PRLOGAR, U.S. SOLICITOR GENERAL

It would represent a significant contraction in individual rights if the court disregarded liberty interests as reaffirmed by Casey and Roe. … “…

JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR

The Mississippi law was passed. This creates the impression that the Constitution is merely political in nature. Will the institution be able survive?

Since the dawn of time, philosophers have heatedly debated the issue of when life began. This issue is still being debated by religions. It’s not a religious belief to say that this is all that the state has that would allow them to take away the right of protecting a person’s life.

JOHN ROBERTS,CHIEF JUSTICE

Roe and Casey rulings that states cannot prohibit abortion after a fetus has become viable outside of the womb have been interpreted by doctors to mean that the ban is not effective. “I prefer the ban at 15 weeks because it doesn’t seem like a significant departure from viability. This is what the vast majority other countries use. The viability standard is shared with North Korea’s People’s Republic of China.

JULIE RICKELMAN, ATTORNEY JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORDINATION

According to decades of precedent, Mississippi’s ban against abortion just two months prior to viability is clearly unconstitutional. Mississippi requests the court to end this precedent so that states can force pregnant women to give birth to their own will.

JUSTICE STEPHEN BRYER

“The problem is with a supercase like this, when people really oppose each other and fight one another, it’s that they’re going be willing to say no, you are just political, they’re only politicians. That’s the thing that kills American institutions.

JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN

“There has been fifty years of water, 50 years worth of decisions saying this is part our law, this is part the fabric of women’s existence in this nation, and that it places us in a completely different position than if we had arrived 50 years ago with the same arguments.”

JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO

Concerning the 1897 Supreme Court decision allowing racial separation: “Wouldn it not suffice to state that it was an egregiously incorrect decision at the time it was made and should now be overruled?”

JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH

When there are both important and competing interests, such as the two you mentioned, it is not fair that this court should be the arbitrator. It belongs to Congress, the states legislatures, the supreme courts of the states, or people who can solve this problem. There will be answers in Mississippi, New York and Alabama that are different from those in California. These two interests have different values and people might place different importance on those answers.

JUSTICE MY CONEY BERRETT

The “safe harbor” laws that permit women to hand their unwanted babies over to health facilities free of penalty are called “safe-haven”. You… should focus on how forced parenting or forced motherhood would affect women’s access and opportunities in the workplace. But it also needs to consider the implications of parenthood and obligations that come with motherhood. What’s the point of safe haven legislation?