In 1971, Norma McCorvey brought a case before the Supreme Court of the United StatesThe judicial body charged with determining whether laws and actions of the government are in line with the Constitution.. McCorvey's pseudonym was "Jane Roe", and she was bringing a case against district attorneyThe chief prosecutor in a US county. Henry Wade. Her lawyers argued that laws banning abortions were unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court issued a decision in "Roe v WadeA ruling of the Supreme Court in 1973 that determined that the right to have an abortion up to the third trimester was constitutionally protected and so could not be limited by any state.". Seven of the nine justices voted that abortion restrictions violated the constitutional right to privacyIn Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court determined that the Fourteenth Amendment implies a "right to privacy" that could be extended to women seeking abortions..

The ruling passed with barely a whisper. Abortion was not a widely controversial issue in the 1970s.

Much has changed. Evangelical Christians have become one of the most important political forces in America, with a ban on abortion at the heart of their platform.

Even the original McCorvey has turned against her own landmark case. She converted in 1995 and spent the last decades of her life campaigning against abortion.

Republicans have harnessed this religious passion by promising to appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court.

According to a draft opinion leaked to Politico, they may finally get their wish. The Court has provisionally voted to overturn Roe v Wade. The official ruling will be released in July.

Individual US states were already moving to restrict abortion rights. In Texas, state legislators have outlawed abortion after six weeks of pregnancyThe Texan bill makes abortion illegal after the foetus has developed a heartbeat, which usually occurs around six weeks of pregnancy. Many women do not yet know they are pregnant at that point..

Now many states are expected to ban abortion outright.

Supporters argue it was always wrong for this decision to be left to the Court. They point out that abortion is a political issue that needs to be resolved by democratic representatives - not by unelected judges.

But others counter that abortion is an individual right. That means it is not up for debate any more than free speech, religious freedom or the right to vote.

The decision has other implications. Abortion is not the only right enshrined by the Supreme Court. More than half a million LGBT people have been married since the Court ruled that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right in 2015. Now, they could have everything taken away.

But some think this could be an opportunity. Feminists have long argued for abortion to be enshrined in law as a human right. Doing this would force the government to keep abortion legal - and to protect and expand abortion access. 

Yes: The purpose of the Court is to uphold the Constitution, which says nothing about abortion. It was never in their power to decide whether or not abortion should be legal.

No: There are many individual rights that the Constitution does not explicitly address. The Court should exist to uphold individual rights regardless of their constitutional status. This includes abortion.

Or... This controversy proves that the Court is now a political institution, not just a judicial one. This will have grave implications for the legitimacy of its future rulings.