The Supreme Court appears to be on the cusp of ending its 49-year-old legal precedent that protects abortion rights nationwide if the majority signs on to a draft opinion obtained and published by Politico on Monday.

The revelation of the draft opinion does not have an immediate effect on abortion access. If the apparent majority willing to overturn Roe v. Wade stays firm, the precedent would not be overturned until the formal release of the court's ruling, which is likely to come in June.

But the ruling previewed in the draft authored by Justice Samuel Alito would upend abortion access by giving states the ability to decide how aggressively to restrict access to the procedure. Here's what to know.

What is the draft opinion?

A draft opinion is just what it sounds like, an opinion that is still in the works and has not been finalized. Politico obtained and published what it described as a draft Supreme Court majority opinion striking down Roe v. Wade. It was written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito and circulated among the justices in February.

Notably, the opinion is a draft and the court's votes are not final until the formal opinions are officially released. Drafts are often amended and changed based on the input of the other justices. In some instances, justices have switched sides before an opinion is issued, such as when Chief Justice John Roberts flipped and saved Obamacare in 2012.

The opinion in the case in question, Dobbs v. Jackson, is a challenge to Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban. The state had asked the justices to use the case to reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling -- and the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling upholding Roe -- that together guarantee a right to an abortion before a fetus is viable.

What does the draft mean immediately for abortion rights?

Until a final opinion is released, Roe v. Wade remains the law of the land. Justices can, and have in the past, changed their votes after initial draft opinions are circulated.

But the revelation of where the court is likely headed will undoubtedly supercharge what have been contentious fights in state legislatures over how to prepare for a ruling that overturns Roe and put abortion at the forefront of the national political discourse as the country awaits the final ruling.

What does the draft signal about where the court is going on Roe?

The draft signals that there were at least five votes for overturning Roe when the justices privately convened after the case's oral arguments, which were held in December.

Under normal procedures, by the end of that week, the justices would have met in their private conference to take a preliminary vote on the issue.

They would have gone around the table in order of seniority discussing their views on the case. Roberts, as chief justice, would have gone first. After that initial tally, if the chief was in the majority, he would assign the majority opinion. Otherwise, the most senior justice would have that responsibility. After that, drafts go between justices' chambers. In the past, justices have changed their votes and sometimes a majority opinion ultimately becomes a dissent.

It appears, according to Politico's report, that five justices were willing to vote to overturn Roe. Roberts did not want to completely overturn Roe v. Wade, sources tell CNN. At the same time, he wants to uphold the Mississippi law. That would leave the four justices willing to join an Alito opinion overturning Roe outright to be Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

What will happen to abortion access if the court overrules Roe?

Abortion access would depend on where you live in the country. In the draft opinion, Alito writes that the Constitution makes no reference to abortion and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision: "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's representatives."

That would mean state legislatures could choose for themselves how much to restrict abortion access. Several states are poised to implement extreme limits or outright bans on the procedure. Some states have on their books so-called trigger bans, which would put into effect prohibitions on abortion if and when the Supreme Court releases a formal opinion overturning Roe.

Activity around passing restrictive laws in red states picked up after the Dobbs case was taken up for review and after oral arguments suggested the conservative wing may have had five voters to overturn Roe.

For instance, Kentucky and other states passed 15-week bans, like the Mississippi law before the Supreme Court, while other state legislatures sought to bar abortion earlier in the pregnancy. Some of those laws, including Kentucky's, have already been blocked by federal courts that cited the existing Supreme Court abortion precedent that has not yet been overturned.

On the other side of the spectrum, Democratic-led states are considering proposals to shore up abortion rights. Connecticut's legislature recently approved legislation to make abortions easier to obtain in the state and that would protect their abortion provider from the anti-abortion laws of other states. Similar proposals are under consideration in New York, California and elsewhere.

Some purple states might take a middle ground approach, stopping short of banning abortion outright, but limiting at earlier points in the pregnancy than what was previously allowed under the line current precedent draws at viability, a point around 23 weeks into pregnancy.

The U.S. Senate will consider legislation that would attempt to block states from banning abortions, essentially keeping the status quo for abortion policy in the U.S. Legislation could go up for a vote next week.

The proposed legislation comes in the wake of a leaked draft of a Supreme Court opinion that would undo the legal precedent set in Roe versus Wade. The draft published by Politico earlier this week indicates the Supreme Court is poised to undo Roe versus Wade, opening the door for states to ban or curtail a person’s ability to seek an abortion.

While most Democrats have vowed to legislate abortion rights into law, such legislation likely does not have enough support despite Democrats holding advantages in both the Senate and House. Such a measure could require 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. Some Democrats have also expressed a reticence to eliminate the filibuster.

“They spent a decade, two decades trying to repeal Roe and now they won't own up to it,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said about Republicans. “They're like the dog that caught the bus. They know they're on the wrong side of history. They know they're on the wrong side of where the American people are. They know they'll pay consequences in the 2022 elections. And their spin masters are telling them to avoid the subject and they did.”

The leader of Senate Republicans, Mitch McConnell, expressed his displeasure at the leak.

“Never before, never before in modern history has an internal draft been leaked to the public while the justices were still deciding a case. Never before. Whoever committed this lawless act knew exactly what it could bring about. The Justices already require security,” McConnell said.

Democrats appear poised to use the 2022 midterm election as a referendum on abortion rights.

“If the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose. And it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November. At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice Senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law,” President Joe Biden said earlier this week.

NEW YORK —

Top leaders of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called on the faithful to pray and fast Friday, in hopes the Supreme Court is on track to overturn the constitutional right to abortion. Yet even among Catholics who oppose abortion, there is some unease about the consequences of such a ruling.

A recently leaked Supreme Court draft opinion suggests that a majority of the nine justices are poised to reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision – a move that would allow individual states to outlaw abortion.

Some anti-abortion Catholics say such an outcome would be the answer to their prayers. Others caution that Catholic leaders should distance themselves from the politically partisan wing of the anti-abortion movement and expand their concept of “pro-life” by supporting broad policies that set up safety nets for unwed mothers and low-income families.

Madison Chastain, a Catholic blogger and disability advocate, describes herself as anti-abortion, yet opposes overturning Roe and criminalizing abortions.

Factors that cause abortion, she wrote in the National Catholic Reporter, include lack of comprehensive sex education, inadequate health care, and workplace inequalities.

“Making abortion illegal before addressing these injustices is going to kill women, because women will continue to have abortions, secretively and unsafely,” she wrote.”

Sam Sawyer, a journalist and Jesuit priest, says he is a “dedicated pro-life advocate” who favors Roe’s reversal. Yet he responded to the leak with an essay listing reasons why abortion rights supporters are so alarmed by that prospect.

“The pro-life movement and its political alliances are perceived as a threat not just to abortion itself but also to democratic norms, to judicial commitments to civil rights, and to women’s health and economic security,“ Sawyer wrote in America, the Jesuit magazine for which he is a senior editor.

Republican politicians, backed by anti-abortion leaders, “have used the lives of the unborn as moral cover for ignoring other calls for justice,” Sawyer wrote. “The pro-life movement’s political allies have gutted social safety net programs that would make it easier for women to carry pregnancies to term.”

The call for a day of fasting and prayer came from Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, the president of the U.S. bishops conference, and Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities.

They requested prayers for the overturning of Roe and for “the conversion of the hearts and minds of those who advocate for abortion.”

The archbishops echoed the calls of other Catholic leaders who, after the Supreme Court leak, suggested that a reversal of Roe should be coupled with expanded outreach and support for pregnant women and new mothers.

Lori highlighted a USCCB program called Walking With Moms in Need, saying the church should redouble its efforts “to accompany women and couples who are facing unexpected or difficult pregnancies, and during the early years of parenthood.”

The bishops conference has designated the “threat of abortion” as its preeminent priority – a viewpoint that many lay Catholics don't share. According to Pew Research Center surveys, 56% of U.S. Catholics say abortion should be legal in all or most cases.

Professor O. Carter Snead, who teaches law and political science at the University of Notre Dame, said via email that most Catholics engaging in anti-abortion activism “are not hard political partisans but rather people seeking to care for moms and babies by whatever means are available.”

As an example, Snead cited Notre Dame’s de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture – which he directs – and one of its initiatives, called “Women and Children First: Imagining a Post-Roe World.” Through teaching, research and public engagement, the initiative seeks to strengthen support for “women, children (born and unborn), and families in need.”

However, achieving broad bipartisan collaboration on such initiatives may not come soon, Snead acknowledged.

“It is true, regrettably, that the only political party that has been willing to partner to provide legal protection for the unborn is the Republicans,” he said.

Chad Pecknold, a theology professor at The Catholic University of America, also doubted there could be a post-Roe surge of bipartisanship on abortion.

“So long as Democrats insist on abortion for all nine months of a pregnancy, and as long as Republicans recognize that abortion runs contrary to the 14th Amendment, this will remain a partisan issue,” he said via email.

“But the goal of the pro-life movement has never been partisan,” Pecknold added. “The goal is justice for pre-born persons who have a right to live, to be loved, to be raised in a family.”

Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas – an outspoken critic of Catholic politicians who support abortion rights — said abortion opponents “must continue to provide support and care for the mothers who find themselves in difficult situations.”

“I pray that we may move to a place where mother and child are both held as sacred and society supports both lives in every way possible,” he said via email.

David Gibson, director of the Center on Religion and Culture at Fordham University, questioned the significance of recent promises by Catholic bishops and other anti-abortion leaders to boost support for unwed mothers.

“Can this movement that is so tied to the Republican Party and the conservative movement suddenly pivot to mobilizing its people for socially liberal policies?” Gibson asked, referring to programs such as subsidized child care and paid maternity leaves.

Steven Millies, a professor of public theology at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, says the bishops bear partial responsibility for the entrenched polarization over abortion, which he expects to continue even if Roe is overturned.

“It’s unrealistically hopeful to think that the habits of division will be abandoned,” said Millies, suggesting that the bishops could have done more to reduce abortions over the years by pressing hard for stronger, better-funded social programs.

Rebecca Bratten Weiss, a writer and the digital editor of U.S. Catholic magazine, said she no longer labels herself “pro-life” — though she was active in that movement for many years and believes all life is worthy of protection.

“The people who are working to overturn Roe have made it quite clear they have zero interest in expanding safety nets,” she said. “They either haven't thought through the consequences, or they are OK with the consequences — a higher rate of infant mortality, more women seeking unsafe abortions, more families driven to desperate measures.”

Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest who writes for Religion News Service, suggested in a column that reversal of Roe should be an occasion for reassessment by the many bishops who embraced the Republican Party because of its anti-abortion stance.

“Catholic bishops will celebrate this victory for which they have worked for decades, but ironically it should lead to a divorce between the bishops and Republicans,” Reese wrote. “The GOP has nothing else to offer them. In fact, except for abortion, its proposals are the opposite of Catholic social teaching.”

Assuming Roe is overturned, Reese added, “the bishops can declare victory on abortion and turn their focus to social programs ... that help women have and raise children so they are not forced to have abortions. ”

Yet Reese doubts this will happen.

“My guess is they will continue to fight as long as there is no consensus in America on abortion,” he wrote. “This will mean sticking with the Republicans and sacrificing all their other priorities.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the chamber will vote on a measure Friday that would codify abortion rights nationwide. The bill, however, will unlikely become law under the current Congress.

Another bill unlikely to get through the Senate will be one intended to stop states from penalizing women for crossing state borders to have an abortion.

If House Democrats use their slim majority to send the bills to the Senate, those bills would need 60 votes to break a Senate filibuster. While some have called on Democrats to abolish the filibuster, Sens. Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema both said they oppose such a measure.

“Women's health decisions are her own,” Pelosi said. “They don't belong to politicians in Washington, D. C. or in state capitols or in the Supreme Court of the United States. They belong to a woman, her family, her God, her doctor, her loved ones.”

The bills show that Democrats are eager to use the reversal of Roe v. Wade to their advantage heading into this November’s midterms.

“People don't like it when we say vote, vote in 100 days,” Pelosi said. “People will be voting less fewer than 100 days. People will be voting and we have to elect a couple more Senate Democratic senators so that we can get around the filibuster so that we can pass legislation that truly impacts a woman's right to choose. But there's not a halfway measure. Can't be a little bit pregnant in this. It has to be a real measure that protects a woman's right to choose.”