The end of (reproductive) liberty as we know it: A note on Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Health 597 USC __ (2022)

Q2 Social Sciences Medical Law International Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1177/09685332231154562
E. C. Romanis
{"title":"The end of (reproductive) liberty as we know it: A note on Dobbs V. Jackson Women’s Health 597 USC __ (2022)","authors":"E. C. Romanis","doi":"10.1177/09685332231154562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, a 6–3 majority of the US Supreme Court overturned 50 years of established precedent, ruling that the Constitution confers no right to abortion. Since first recognition that the constitutional right to privacy encompassed a (negative) right to pre-viability abortion in 1973, Supreme Court decisions have slowly chipped away at the substance of this right. Dobbs, however, marks a significant shift in abortion (and general) jurisprudence, by deploying an originalist interpretation of the constitution to deny that such a right exists. Consequently, States may now regulate abortion how they see fit, including by introducing complete prohibitions. This note illustrates how Dobbs has dire consequences for reproductive freedom as we have known it, with disastrous legal and practical ramifications for abortion-seekers, pregnant people, and all people with the physiology to become pregnant. Furthermore, the Court’s use of an originalist approach to rescind a constitutional protection signals further moves to derecognise other rights such as contraception, as well as same-sex intimacy.","PeriodicalId":39602,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law International","volume":"23 1","pages":"71 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09685332231154562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, a 6–3 majority of the US Supreme Court overturned 50 years of established precedent, ruling that the Constitution confers no right to abortion. Since first recognition that the constitutional right to privacy encompassed a (negative) right to pre-viability abortion in 1973, Supreme Court decisions have slowly chipped away at the substance of this right. Dobbs, however, marks a significant shift in abortion (and general) jurisprudence, by deploying an originalist interpretation of the constitution to deny that such a right exists. Consequently, States may now regulate abortion how they see fit, including by introducing complete prohibitions. This note illustrates how Dobbs has dire consequences for reproductive freedom as we have known it, with disastrous legal and practical ramifications for abortion-seekers, pregnant people, and all people with the physiology to become pregnant. Furthermore, the Court’s use of an originalist approach to rescind a constitutional protection signals further moves to derecognise other rights such as contraception, as well as same-sex intimacy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们所知的(生殖)自由的终结:关于多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康597 USC __(2022)
在多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康案中,美国最高法院以6-3的多数推翻了50 多年的既定先例,裁定宪法不赋予堕胎权。自1973年首次承认宪法隐私权包括生存前堕胎的(负面)权利以来,最高法院的裁决慢慢削弱了这一权利的实质。然而,多布斯通过对宪法的原始解释来否认堕胎权的存在,标志着堕胎(和一般)法学的重大转变。因此,各国现在可以按照自己认为合适的方式对堕胎进行监管,包括实行全面禁止。这篇说明说明了多布斯如何对我们所知的生育自由产生可怕的后果,对寻求堕胎者、孕妇和所有有生理能力怀孕的人产生灾难性的法律和实际后果。此外,最高法院使用原始主义方法撤销宪法保护,标志着进一步取消避孕和同性亲密关系等其他权利。
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
Medical Law International
Medical Law International Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The scope includes: Clinical Negligence. Health Matters Affecting Civil Liberties. Forensic Medicine. Determination of Death. Organ and Tissue Transplantation. End of Life Decisions. Legal and Ethical Issues in Medical Treatment. Confidentiality. Access to Medical Records. Medical Complaints Procedures. Professional Discipline. Employment Law and Legal Issues within NHS. Resource Allocation in Health Care. Mental Health Law. Misuse of Drugs. Legal and Ethical Issues concerning Human Reproduction. Therapeutic Products. Medical Research. Cloning. Gene Therapy. Genetic Testing and Screening. And Related Topics.
期刊最新文献
Challenges for the legislation enabling egg donation in Switzerland. Book review: Not What the Bus Promised: Health Governance After Brexit Accessing third-party research databases for criminal investigations: Enhancing legal protections and safeguarding public interests Book review: The Disability Bioethics Reader Book review: The Right to Be Protected From Committing Suicide
×
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