Without Due Process of Law: The Dobbs Decision and Its Cataclysmic Impact on the Substantive Due Process and Privacy Rights of Ohio Women.

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2024-01-01
Jacob Wenner
{"title":"Without Due Process of Law: The Dobbs Decision and Its Cataclysmic Impact on the Substantive Due Process and Privacy Rights of Ohio Women.","authors":"Jacob Wenner","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since the overturning of prior abortion precedents in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, there has been a question on the minds of many women in this country: how will this decision affect me and my rights? As we have seen in the aftermath of Dobbs, many states have pushed for stringent anti-abortion measures seeking to undermine the foundation on which women's reproductive freedom had been grounded on for decades. This includes right here in Ohio, where Republican lawmakers have advocated on numerous occasions for implementing laws seeking to limit abortion rights, including a 6-week abortion ban advocated for and passed by the Ohio Republican legislature and signed into law by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. Despite this particular ban being successfully challenged and stayed, significant problems persist regarding due process rights for women in Ohio, particularly in the aftermath of Justice Thomas's concurrence in Dobbs advising the Court to revisit prior precedents, such as Griswold v. Connecticut providing for the right to contraception. If the Court were to revisit and strike down Griswold, it would further undermine privacy and due process rights that have been granted to women across this country, including here in Ohio, for decades. Justice Thomas's concurrence, while merely dicta, encapsulates a Court that has become increasingly hostile to treasured fundamental rights for women, a hostility mirrored in numerous Republican legislatures, including right here in Ohio.</p>","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of law and health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the overturning of prior abortion precedents in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, there has been a question on the minds of many women in this country: how will this decision affect me and my rights? As we have seen in the aftermath of Dobbs, many states have pushed for stringent anti-abortion measures seeking to undermine the foundation on which women's reproductive freedom had been grounded on for decades. This includes right here in Ohio, where Republican lawmakers have advocated on numerous occasions for implementing laws seeking to limit abortion rights, including a 6-week abortion ban advocated for and passed by the Ohio Republican legislature and signed into law by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. Despite this particular ban being successfully challenged and stayed, significant problems persist regarding due process rights for women in Ohio, particularly in the aftermath of Justice Thomas's concurrence in Dobbs advising the Court to revisit prior precedents, such as Griswold v. Connecticut providing for the right to contraception. If the Court were to revisit and strike down Griswold, it would further undermine privacy and due process rights that have been granted to women across this country, including here in Ohio, for decades. Justice Thomas's concurrence, while merely dicta, encapsulates a Court that has become increasingly hostile to treasured fundamental rights for women, a hostility mirrored in numerous Republican legislatures, including right here in Ohio.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
没有正当法律程序:多布斯裁决及其对俄亥俄州妇女的实质性正当程序和隐私权的灾难性影响》。
自从多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案推翻了之前的堕胎先例后,这个国家的许多妇女都在思考一个问题:这一判决会对我和我的权利产生什么影响?正如我们在多布斯案之后所看到的,许多州都在推行严格的反堕胎措施,试图破坏几十年来妇女生育自由的基础。这其中就包括俄亥俄州,共和党立法者曾多次主张实施旨在限制堕胎权利的法律,包括俄亥俄州共和党立法机构主张并通过的 6 周堕胎禁令,该禁令已由俄亥俄州州长迈克-德怀恩(Mike DeWine)签署成为法律。尽管这项禁令受到了成功的挑战并被暂缓执行,但俄亥俄州妇女的正当程序权利仍存在重大问题,尤其是在托马斯大法官同意 Dobbs 案的意见后,他建议法院重新审视之前的先例,如规定避孕权利的 Griswold 诉康涅狄格州案。如果法院重审并废除格里斯沃尔德案,将进一步损害包括俄亥俄州在内的全国妇女数十年来享有的隐私权和正当程序权。托马斯大法官的赞同意见虽然只是一派胡言,但却概括了法院对妇女珍视的基本权利日益增长的敌意,这种敌意反映在众多共和党立法机构中,包括俄亥俄州的立法机构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Ninth Amendment: An Underutilized Protection for Reproductive Choice. Distorted Burden Shifting and Barred Mitigation: Being a Stubborn 234 Years Old Ironically Hasn't Helped the Supreme Court Mature. How Bodily Autonomy Can Fail Against Vaccination Mandates: The Few vs. the Many. When Governors Prioritize Individual Freedom over Public Health: Tort Liability for Government Failures. Without Due Process of Law: The Dobbs Decision and Its Cataclysmic Impact on the Substantive Due Process and Privacy Rights of Ohio Women.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1