Yes. The holding of a case is its outcome--in that case the declaration that woman have a constitutional right to a pre-third trimester abortion (clarified in casey to be a pre-fetal viability abortion). The timing aspect was a rational compromise. The reasoning that provided the foundation for the holding, that there is a constitutional right to privacy found in the 14th amendment (not to be confused with the right to privacy connected to the 4th Amendment (did the person who had property or information seized without a warrant have a reasonable expectation of privacy)) was weak and thus has been crumbling for 50 years. Yet, even if the reasoning of a case is unsound, the holding can still be affirmed on other grounds. The stronger foundation is found in the 1st Amendment's anti-establishment clause, which would not fail an honestly applied originalist test (I determined that many originalists are not honest--they turn activist when it suits them, such as Scalia did in Citizens United (see my https://medium.com/illumination/originalism-or-modernism-13b897b5f90b ). Laws that prohibit pre-fetal-viability abortion codify certain religious views (and minority ones at that) and thus violate the anti-establishment clause. This is my essay on that, which I wrote in December https://medium.com/p/4d234daa2e71