Roe v. Wade isn't doomed under Trump. But it's not safe either.

Vox (Nov. 11, 2106): Roe v. Wade isn't doomed under Trump.  But it's not safe either, by Emily Crockett:

Julie Rikelman of the Center for Reproductive Rights and Jessica Mason Pieklo of Rewire weigh in on litigation challenges to Roe v. Wade.  Based upon the power of precedent, the current alignment of the Court and the difficulty and rarity of the Court hearing an abortion case, Rikelman thinks it's unlikely that Roe will be reversed and that Planned Parenthood v. Casey's undue burden standard will remain in effect.  Assuming that President-elect Trump appoints a Justice opposed to abortion, there would still be a 5-member majority on the Court who recently decided Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, affirming and clarifying Casey's undue burden standard.   Even if Roe, itself is not in danger, it is likely that abortion opponents will develop new strategies to chip away at it indirectly. One way states are currently seeking to weaken current protections for abortion is through laws that try to ban abortions at 20 week or ban dilation and extraction (D&E) abortions, the most common method of performing a second trimester abortion.  With their majority in Congress, Republicans may try to pass national versions of these laws.  If such a law passes, pro-choice advocates would have to decide whether or not to challenge the law - taking a chance of a negative Supreme Court ruling - or of letting the law remain in effect unchallenged, denying access to abortion for women who decide late in pregnancy to have an abortion (often for reasons like a serious or fatal fetal anomaly) or women who discovered a pregnancy late or could not raise the funds for an earlier abortion.