Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 1, 2021 Decided June 24, 2022
Full case name	Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al.
Docket no.	19-1392
Argument	Oral argument
Decision	Opinion
Questions presented
Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.
Holding
The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled. Decision of the lower court reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito · Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan · Neil Gorsuch Brett Kavanaugh · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
Majority	Alito, joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
Concurrence	Thomas
Concurrence	Kavanaugh
Concurrence	Roberts (in judgement)
Dissent	Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor (joint authorship)
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Roe v. Wade (1973) Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that holds that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, overruling both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

The case was about the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi state law that bans most abortion operations after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. Lower courts have prevented enforcement of the law with preliminary injunctions. The injunctions are based on the ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which prevents states from banning abortion before fetal viability, generally within the first 24 weeks, on the basis that a woman's choice for abortion during that time is protected by rights of privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The shift of the ideology of the Supreme Court, through the 2020 appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was outspoken against abortion before her appointment, made Dobbs a potential vehicle to challenge both Roe and Casey. More than 20 states prepared legislation, including 13 with trigger laws, to strictly regulate abortion should Dobbs overturn Roe and Casey. Dobbs gained more attention in the wake of legal battles over the Texas Heartbeat Act, enacted in May 2021, leading to near record-setting amicus curiae submissions in Dobbs.

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court were held in December 2021. On May 2, 2022, Politico published a leaked draft majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito. It would overturn Roe and Casey by nullifying the specific privacy rights in question, eliminating federal involvement, and leaving the issue to be determined by the states. Through a statement made by the Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, the Court confirmed the document's authenticity, but said that it "does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case".

The decision was issued on June 24, 2022, ruling 6–3 to reverse the lower court rulings; a more narrow 5–4 ruling overturned Roe and Casey. The majority opinion stated that abortion was not a constitutional right, thus overturning both Roe and Casey, and that states should have discretion in regulating abortion. The majority opinion, written by Alito, was substantially similar to the leaked draft. A concurrence by Chief Justice Roberts would have upheld the Mississippi law in question but would not have questioned a constitutional right to an abortion given a "reasonable amount of time to make a choice" that would be shorter than the viability standard of Casey.

Background

Main articles: Abortion in the United States and Abortion in the United States by state

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, a 1973 landmark decision, that the right to privacy within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. The Court partly reaffirmed this in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 case that also struck down Roe's trimester framework in favor of a fetal viability standard, typically 24 weeks into pregnancy. Casey held those state laws that restrict abortion before the fetus is viable create an undue burden on women seeking abortions, and are unconstitutional because they violate the Due Process Clause, a woman's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The court also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced with possible government interest and may be affected by medical advancements that allow premature babies to survive at younger gestational ages.

After Roe, there was a political realignment surrounding abortion in the U.S. Although the abortion-rights movement was allied with the population control movement before Roe, during the years immediately afterward the population control movement experienced a series of scandals that made it appear divisive. As anti-abortion advocates accused the abortion rights movement of racism, the abortion-rights movement responded by changing its rhetoric. Instead of emphasizing national policy benefits of abortion, such as smaller welfare expenses, slower population growth, and fewer illegitimate births, it took up choice and rights-oriented rhetoric similar to what was used in the Roe decision.

Opponents of abortion also experienced a political shift. The Catholic Church and the Democratic Party supported an expansive welfare state, wanted to reduce rates of abortion through prenatal insurance and federally funded day care, and opposed abortion at the time of Roe, but the anti-abortion movement shifted to Protestant faiths that saw abortion rights as part of a liberal-heavy agenda to fight against and became part of the new Christian right. The Protestant influence led to opposition to abortion being made part of the Republican Party's platform by the 1990s. Republican-led states enacted laws to restrict abortion, including abortions earlier than Casey's general standard of 24 weeks. The courts enjoined most of these laws. The use of fetal viability as a standard was questioned in U.S. abortion-related cases after Casey, including by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in her dissenting opinion in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. These opinions argue that there are other scientific, philosophical, and moral considerations involved.

During the Roberts Court under Chief Justice John Roberts since 2005, there has often been a 5–4 conservative majority with the potential to overturn Roe and Casey. Roberts is a strong proponent of stare decisis, believing that even some wrongly decided cases should not be overturned, as well as a staunch defender of the Court's reputation. Since 2018, the Court's ideological makeup with respect to abortion rights shifted, with Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh's appointments alongside Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. Some Republican-majority states passed bills restricting abortions, anticipating a potential legal shift from the Supreme Court and providing possible case vehicles for bringing the issue to the Supreme Court. When Amy Coney Barrett replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court's ideological makeup shifted further and created an opportunity to overturn or additionally limit Roe. Ginsburg had generally been in the majority of past Supreme Court cases that enjoined stricter abortion laws. Conversely, political analysts see Barrett as having anti-abortion views; in 1998, she wrote in a law journal article that abortion is "always immoral".

Gestational Age Act

See also: Abortion in Mississippi § Legislative history

In March 2018, the state of Mississippi passed the Gestational Age Act, which banned any abortion operation after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for a medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality but none for cases of rape or incest. The medical emergency exception allows abortions done to save the life of a pregnant woman and in situations where "the continuation of the pregnancy will create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function". The severe fetal abnormality exception allows abortions of fetuses whose defects will leave them incapable of living outside the womb.

The legislature justified this prohibition on the basis that intentionally crushing and tearing apart fetuses for nontherapeutic or elective reasons was "a barbaric practice, dangerous for the maternal patient, and demeaning to the medical profession." Another basis was that the abortion procedures forbidden under the Act were said by the legislature to carry "significant physical and psychological risks", and could cause various medical complications.

Governor Phil Bryant signed the bill into law, saying he was "committed to making Mississippi the safest place in America for an unborn child, and this bill will help us achieve that goal". He added: "We'll probably be sued here in about a half hour, and that'll be fine with me. It is worth fighting over."

Lower courts

Within a day of the Gestational Age Act's passage, Mississippi's only abortion clinic, Jackson Women's Health Organization, and one of its doctors, Sacheen Carr-Ellis, sued state officials Thomas E. Dobbs, state health officer with the Mississippi State Department of Health, and Kenneth Cleveland, executive director of the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure, to challenge the Act's constitutionality. The clinic does surgical abortions up to 16 weeks' gestation and is represented in court by the Center for Reproductive Rights. The case was heard by Judge Carlton W. Reeves of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. In November 2018, Reeves ruled for the clinic and placed an injunction on Mississippi enjoining it from enforcing the Act. Reeves wrote that based on evidence that viability of the fetus begins between 23 and 24 weeks, Mississippi had "no legitimate state interest strong enough, prior to viability, to justify a ban on abortions". Dobbs sought to have the judges consider whether fetal pain might be possible after 15 weeks, but the District Court ruled his evidence "inadmissible and irrelevant".

The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which upheld Reeves's ruling in a 3–0 decision in December 2019. Senior Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham wrote for the Court: "In an unbroken line dating to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's abortion cases have established (and affirmed, and re-affirmed) a woman's right to choose an abortion before viability. States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the woman's right, but they may not ban abortions." A request for an en banc rehearing was denied.

In May 2019, the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi issued another injunction, this time against a newly passed Mississippi abortion law. This was a heartbeat bill that forbade most abortions when a fetus's heartbeat could be detected, which is usually from 6 to 12 weeks into pregnancy. In a February 2020 per curiam decision, the Fifth Circuit also upheld the second injunction. The Fifth Circuit's statements for both injunctions were similar because they both cited the lack of fetal viability during earlier stages of gestation as a reason to enjoin the laws.

Supreme Court

Roberts Court since October 2020

Mississippi petitioned its appeal of the Fifth Circuit decisions to the Supreme Court in June 2020. Its petition, filed by Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, focused on three questions from the appeals process. In its petition, Mississippi asked the Court to revisit the viability standard on the basis of the standard's inflexibility and inadequate accommodation of present understandings of life before birth. The filing stated that fetuses can detect pain and respond to it at 10–12 weeks gestational age, and asked the Court to allow the prohibition of "inhumane procedures". The petition also contended that the viability standard inadequately addresses the protection of potential human life. Mississippi considered this a State interest from the "onset of the pregnancy" onward.

A response brief focused on two questions asked in opposition to the petition was filed by Hillary Schneller from the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of Jackson Women's Health Organization. JWHO asked the court to deny Mississippi's petition due to judicial precedent. The brief noted that both the District Court and the Fifth Circuit found the Mississippi law unconstitutional by properly applying precedent in a manner that did not conflict with other courts' decisions and argued that there was therefore nothing about the case that "warrants this Court's intervention". The brief also argued that Mississippi was misinterpreting its role in abortion regulation. While the State thought that its interest was greater than the individual right to abortion, JWHO argued that Mississippi's vested interest in regulating abortion was insufficient to ban it before viability, making the Gestational Age Act "unconstitutional by any measure".

The petition went through review at more than a dozen conferences for the Court, which is unusual for most cases. The Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari on May 17, 2021, limiting the court's review to a single question: "Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional." Over 140 amici curiae briefs were submitted before oral argument in Dobbs, approaching the record set by Obergefell v. Hodges, in part to separate and concurrent lawsuits filed over the Texas Heartbeat Act, which effectively gave citizens of the state the means to enforce abortion bans through civil suits.

Oral argument

The case was heard on December 1, 2021. During the oral arguments, Mississippi, represented by Solicitor General Scott G. Stewart, argued that the Constitution does not directly guarantee a right to abortion. Because of this, he said that laws about abortion should be evaluated on a rational basis review instead of the higher level of scrutiny required by the undue burden standard. Stewart also argued for overturning Roe and Casey on the basis that the decisions were unworkable and that new facts have come to light since the two decisions were made. He argued that scientific knowledge has grown about "what we know the child is doing and looks like" and he claimed that we now know that fetuses are "fully human" even "very early" in gestation. Stewart also defended Mississippi's claim in its briefs that new medical advances with viability were at odds with past assumptions made when formulating the viability line. Also, he claimed that the understanding about when fetuses begin to feel pain has grown. Stewart maintained that because of the decisions in Roe and Casey, the government is being kept from responding to these facts by prohibiting pre-viability abortions.

Jackson Women's Health Organization, represented by Julie Rikelman, argued that the Court should not overrule the two decisions because the viability standard was correct. According to Rikelman, Mississippi's arguments against Roe were not new, but instead similar to the ones Pennsylvania made during Casey. Since Roe's essential holding was upheld for Casey, she said that the Court should do the same here, since there had been no new changes in the laws and facts since then that could justify changing the Court's position. Rikelman argued that Mississippi's argument against using the undue burden standard was wrong because the standard actually applies to specifically to post-viability abortion regulations rather than to the prohibition of abortions before viability. She told the Court that the undue burden standard was workable, and the viability line incorporated into the standard was likewise workable. She noted that for 50 years, the viability line had been clearly and consistently applied in the courts.

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Barchas Prelogar argued that Roe and Casey should not be overruled. She argued that there has been a substantial reliance on the right to abortion by both individuals and society, and that the Court "has never revoked a right that is so fundamental to so many Americans and so central to their ability to participate fully and equally in society."

Based on their analysis of the questioning, Court observers said that its six conservative members were likely to uphold Mississippi's law. Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to suggest that viability was not relevant to the holdings of either Roe or Casey, and that only a fair choice or opportunity to seek an abortion was constitutionally protected. The other conservative justices appeared to be ready to overturn Roe and Casey.

Leaked draft opinion

See also: List of United States Supreme Court leaks

The leaked draft majority opinion

On May 2, 2022, Politico released a draft of a majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito circulated among the justices in February 2022. The draft opinion would overturn Roe and Casey. Alito's draft called the Roe decision "egregiously wrong from the start", arguing that abortion is not listed in the Constitution as a protected right, and instead would allow states to decide on abortion restrictions or guarantees under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Sources told Politico that Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett had voted in conference with Alito in December and their positions had remained unchanged as of May 2022, though it is unclear whether they agreed with Alito's draft, as no other drafts in concurrence or dissent had yet been circulated. According to CNN, Roberts voted to uphold the Gestational Age Act but "did not want to completely overturn Roe v. Wade". The Washington Post reported from court sources that Roberts had been working since December 2021 on his own opinion, which would uphold Roe while narrowly allowing the Mississippi law to take effect.

The Supreme Court confirmed the draft's authenticity the next day, but cautioned that "it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case". Roberts said that he had directed the Marshal of the Court, Gail A. Curley, to investigate the news leak and that "to the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the court was to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed."' The leak probe is in progress, and CNN reported on May 31 that law clerks were asked to provide private cell phone records and sign affidavits. The unprecedented move has alarmed some clerks into exploring whether to hire independent counsel.

In response to the leak, Chief Justice Roberts said: "The work of the Court will not be affected in any way." At an Eleventh Circuit judicial conference, he called the leak "absolutely appalling" and said that "one bad apple" should not change "people's perception" of the Supreme Court; Justice Thomas commented that the Court should not be "bullied" into delivering preferred outcomes and repeated his criticisms of stare decisis. He later added that the leak was an "unthinkable breach of trust" that "fundamentally" changed the Court.

Leaks about Supreme Court deliberations in a pending case are rare, and a leak of a draft decision is unprecedented. There is uncertainty about whether the leak violated federal laws, and experts differ as to whether the U.S. Department of Justice is likely to pursue criminal charges.

Reactions

See also: 2022 abortion rights protests in the United States

An abortion-rights protest in New York City

Within hours of the news of the leak, both pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion protesters gathered outside the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere in the U.S. The response to the draft has put unusual public pressure on the Court as it makes its decision in the case. While over 450 large-scale marches and protests organized by Planned Parenthood, Women's March, and other groups under the name "Bans Off Our Bodies" were planned for 2022, the organizers pushed the event up to May 14, 2022, after the opinion leaked. The organizers said, "Folks are mobilizing because they see that the hour is later than we thought" and that the event would lead off a "summer of rage" if Roe and Casey were overturned. A leaked Department of Homeland Security memo indicated that DHS was preparing for a surge of political violence on public officials, clergy, and abortion providers after the ruling. A DHS bulletin warned that the leak had spawned further violence in the summer before the 2022 midterms.

Nonviolent protests were held outside some of the justices' homes, leading the Senate to unanimously pass a bill that would temporarily expand protections for the justices and their families; that bill has stalled in the House. Republicans have argued that those protests violate a 1950 federal law that criminalizes attempting to influence a judge in the course of their official duties by demonstrating near their residence. A man from California was arrested for attempted murder of Justice Kavanaugh near his home over the leak, as well as a pending decision in a gun control case.

The leak renewed calls from Democrats, including President Joe Biden and pro-abortion rights activists, for the U.S. Senate to pass the Women's Health Protection Act, which had already passed the House of Representatives, to codify the rights established by Roe and Casey before Dobbs was decided and supersede the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It failed to pass in the Senate on May 11, after a 49–51 vote that, as expected, primarily fell along party lines. Biden denounced the draft opinion as "radical" and said that same-sex marriage and birth control were also at risk.

Republicans immediately condemned the leak and called for the Supreme Court and Department of Justice, including the FBI, to launch an investigation. 22 members of Congress signed a letter asking the U.S. Attorney General and FBI director to investigate. House Republican leadership issued a joint statement that called the leak "a clearly coordinated campaign to intimidate and obstruct the Justices".

In May 2022, the Marquette Law School released a poll showing a drastic change of public opinion of the Supreme Court. In March 2022, when the survey was last conducted, 54% of respondents said they approved of the nine justices and 45% said they disapproved. In the newest survey, only 44% of respondents reported approval. A June 23 2022 Gallup poll showed confidence in the Supreme Court at 25%, down from 36% in 2021 and the lowest in 50 years.

Opinion of the Court

The Court issued its decision on June 24, 2022. In a 6–3 judgement, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further review. The majority opinion, joined by five of the justices, held that abortion was not a protected right under the Constitution, overturning both Roe and Casey, and returned the decision regarding abortion regulations back to the states.

Majority opinion

Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court.

The majority decision was written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The final decision was substantially similar to the leaked draft. Alito wrote in the majority opinion:

We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely – the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives.

Alito stated that "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division." He further wrote that the right to an abortion was different from other privacy rights, "What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion destroys what those decisions call 'potential life' and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an 'unborn human being'".

In addition to the existing language from the draft, Alito also responded to the dissent opinion in the final decision, stating "the dissent is very candid that it cannot show that a constitutional right to abortion has any foundation, let alone a 'deeply rooted' one, 'in this Nation's history and tradition'. The dissent does not identify any pre-Roe authority that supports such a right – no state constitutional provision or statute, no federal or state judicial precedent, not even a scholarly treatise."

Concurrences

Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh wrote separate concurrences. Thomas argued that the Court should go further in future cases, reconsidering other past Supreme Court cases that granted rights not explicit in the Constitution, such as Griswold v. Connecticut (the right to contraception), Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage), and Lawrence v. Texas (banned laws against sodomy). Thomas wrote "Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."

Kavanaugh wrote separately, making multiple comments. He stated that it would still be unconstitutional to prohibit a woman from going to another state to seek an abortion (under the right to travel), and that it would be unconstitutional to retroactively punish abortions performed before Dobbs when they had been protected by Roe and Casey.

Concurrence in part

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote separately concurring in the judgment, in that he believed the Court should reverse the Fifth Circuit's opinion on the Mississippi law and that "the viability line established by Roe and Casey should be discarded", but did not agree with the majority's opinion to overturn Roe and Casey in their entirety. Roberts suggested a more narrow opinion to justify the constitutionality of Mississippi's law without addressing the question of whether to overturn Roe and Casey. Roberts also wrote that abortion regulations should "extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further." He said that the Court should "leave for another day whether to reject any right to an abortion at all."

Dissent

Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan jointly wrote the dissent. The three wrote, "The majority would allow States to ban abortion from conception onward because it does not think forced childbirth at all implicates a woman's rights to equality and freedom. Today's Court, that is, does not think there is anything of constitutional significance attached to a woman's control of her body and the path of her life. A State can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs." They additionally said, "With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent."

Impact

After the Dobbs litigation began, the Texas Heartbeat Act was enacted on September 1, 2021. Two lawsuits challenging the law, Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas, quickly propagated through the court systems and reached the Supreme Court. Oral arguments for both cases were on November 1, 2021, and decisions for both issued in December 2021. The decisions primarily focused on standing rather than directly addressing constitutional matters and abortion-related issues. The decisions in both cases allowed the Texas Heartbeat Act to remain in force while litigation continued in lower courts. But concern that the Supreme Court was hearing three abortion-related cases in the 2021–22 term led to the near record number of amici curiae briefs filed for Dobbs before the December 1, 2021, oral hearings.

Map showing which U.S. states that have trigger laws banning most abortions if Roe is overturned

Georgia passed Georgia House Bill 481, best known as the Living Infants Fairness Equality (LIFE) Act, in 2019. The law banned most abortions after a fetal heartbeat was detected. There were multiple exceptions for abortions between six and 20 weeks: if the fetus is conceived by rape or incest, the pregnancy is medically futile, or the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. In addition, the law revised who is considered a legal person, allowing pregnant women to receive child support and tax deductions for their offspring before birth. In October 2019, the LIFE Act was challenged and deemed unconstitutional under Roe by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Georgia appealed this ruling to the Eleventh Circuit, but because Dobbs was scheduled to be argued in December 2021, the Circuit Court issued a stay of review until after the Supreme Court decided Dobbs.

At least 22 states with Republican leadership either passed or were in the process of passing anti-abortion related bills when the Supreme Court agreed to hear Dobbs in May 2021. Enforcement of most of the new laws was enjoined by courts, but are be enforceable since Roe was overturned. Thirteen states have trigger laws that will ban most abortions in the first and second trimesters if Roe is overturned. The states with trigger laws are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Nine states, among them Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, as well as the already mentioned Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas, never repealed their pre-Roe abortion bans. Those laws were not criminally enforceable due to Roe but would be enforceable with Roe being overturned. At least some Democratic attorneys general or candidates for attorneys general have pledged not to enforce anti-abortion laws and prevent or hinder local prosecutors' efforts to enforce them, whereas at least some Republicans have pledged to enforce new state bans.

Abortion laws in states that allow abortion are expected to become more permissive following the ruling, not less; proposals by California, Oregon, and Washington have included expanding abortion access by eliminating co-pays for abortion services, funding travel costs for those seeking abortion from states that ban abortion, and enshrining the right to an abortion within state constitutions. Prior to the Supreme Court decision the legislature of Vermont had already approved sending Proposal 5, which would amend the state's constitution "to guarantee sexual and reproductive freedoms", to a referendum in November 2022.

The ruling has been stated to create an independent legal framework by many legal observers, as the ruling laid out a state's ability to determine independent abortion laws. However, as many states have rulings banning any citizen of a state from having an abortion even out of state, it produces a legal framework in which a US state can act more similar to that of sovereign country, prosecuting individuals from taking actions outside of the legal jurisdiction of a state. The enforceability and practicality of such a decision has been criticized, under which it could produce a legal framework of division under the state legal system. As such, the ruling has been seen in the context of ever increasing partisanship and division in the US.

Republicans have eyed implementing a nationwide abortion ban following the ruling.

Reactions to the decision

Support

Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell praised the decision. Many members of the Republican Party in Congress expressed their approval. The Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, called the decision "courageous and correct".

In a statement former President Donald Trump took credit for the decision and called it "the biggest WIN for LIFE in a generation.”

Many Republican states with trigger laws in place immediately implemented them. Multiple Republican governors and attorneys general moved to call special sessions to implement abortion bans or invoke their trigger laws to immediately ban abortion.

The National Right to Life Convention supported the ruling.

Opposition

Proponent of abortion rights opposed the ruling. President Joe Biden said, "It's a sad day for the court and for the country," and that "the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk". Former president Barack Obama criticized the ruling as "attacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans.” Attorney General Merrick Garland criticized the ruling in a statement and warned states to not forbid women to seek out-of-state abortions. HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra called the decision "unconscionable" and said that abortion is an essential part of healthcare. Many members of the Democratic Party in Congress expressed their disappointment with the decision.

Multiple civil and reproductive rights groups criticized the decision such as the NAACP,, while the Congressional Black Caucus called for declaration of a national emergency. Liberals argued that the ruling and Thomas' concurrence created the potential to jeopardize other civil rights. Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the US Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage, criticized Thomas for urging the court to revist and overrule its prior decisions.

Business

JPMorgan Chase stated they would cover travel benefits for employees seeking abortions in states that protected abortion access. Levi Strauss & Co. stated their support for abortion access.

Public figures

Multiple celebrities, including Taylor Swift, Julianne Hough, Mark Ruffalo, Jamie Lee Curtis, Padma Lakshmi, Danny DeVito harshly criticized the ruling.

International

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Michelle Bachelet said that the opinion “represents a major setback after five decades of protection for sexual and reproductive health and rights.”

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the decision "horrific". United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson called the decision "a big step backwards". Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo said that he was "very concerned about implications of U.S. Supreme Court decision...and the signal it sends to the world."

References

Inline

General

• Fitch, Lynn (June 15, 2020). "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari" (PDF). Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. 19-1392.

• Hensley, Erica (August 24, 2020). "Mississippi's only abortion clinic asks Supreme Court to decline 15-week ban case". Mississippi Today. Ridgeland, Mississippi.

• Heritage Reporting Corporation (May 26, 2022). "Argument transcript for No. 19-1392" (PDF). Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

• Schneller, Hillary (August 19, 2020). "Brief in Opposition" (PDF). Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. 19-1392.

• Shimabukuro, Jon O. (October 16, 2020). "Fetal Viability and Judge Amy Coney Barrett". Congressional Research Service Legal Sidebar. LSB10542: 2.

• Shimabukuro, Jon O. (December 13, 2021). "Supreme Court Considers Mississippi Abortion Law". Congressional Research Service Legal Sidebar. LSB10669: 3.

• Ziegler, Mary (2013). "Roe's Race: The Supreme Court, Population Control, and Reproductive Justice" (PDF). Yale Journal of Law and Feminism. 25 (1).

Further reading

• Girgis, Sherif (October 1, 2021). "Two Obstacles to (Merely) Chipping Away at Roe in Dobbs". SSRN 3907787.
• Maxmen, Amy (October 26, 2021). "Why hundreds of scientists are weighing in on a high-stakes US abortion case". Nature. 599 (7884): 187–189. Bibcode:2021Natur.599..187M. doi:10.1038/d41586-021-02834-7. PMID 34703018. S2CID 240000294.

External links

Texts of the two state laws

• "House Bill No. 1510 'Gestational Age Act' as sent to the Governor – Mississippi Legislature Regular Session 2018" (PDF). Legislature.ms.gov.
• "Senate Bill 2116 as sent to the Governor – Mississippi Legislature Regular Session 2019". Legislature.ms.gov.

Oral arguments

• "Argument transcript for No. 19-1392" (PDF). Heritage Reporting Corporation. December 1, 2021.
• "U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization". CSPAN. December 1, 2021 – via YouTube.