Should Constitutional Rights Reflect Popular Opinion? Interpreting Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

Q2 Arts and Humanities Modern American History Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1017/mah.2023.6
Mary Ziegler
{"title":"Should Constitutional Rights Reflect Popular Opinion? Interpreting Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization","authors":"Mary Ziegler","doi":"10.1017/mah.2023.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In June 2022, the Supreme Court handed down a decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which dismantled a fundamental right to choose abortion. A line of Supreme Court decisions dating back to the 1920s recognized unenumerated liberties related to parenting, marriage, and contraception tied to the constitutional right to privacy. Almost half a century ago, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court declared that this constitutional right to privacy was broad enough to encompass the right to terminate a pregnancy. The Dobbs decision reversed Roe and disparaged the right to abortion in the strongest terms: the decision recognizing it was “egregiously wrong” and “on a collision course with the Constitution.”","PeriodicalId":36673,"journal":{"name":"Modern American History","volume":"5 1","pages":"88 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern American History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/mah.2023.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In June 2022, the Supreme Court handed down a decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which dismantled a fundamental right to choose abortion. A line of Supreme Court decisions dating back to the 1920s recognized unenumerated liberties related to parenting, marriage, and contraception tied to the constitutional right to privacy. Almost half a century ago, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court declared that this constitutional right to privacy was broad enough to encompass the right to terminate a pregnancy. The Dobbs decision reversed Roe and disparaged the right to abortion in the strongest terms: the decision recognizing it was “egregiously wrong” and “on a collision course with the Constitution.”
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
宪法权利应该反映民意吗?解读多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案
2022年6月,最高法院做出了多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案的判决,废除了选择堕胎的基本权利。追溯到20世纪20年代,最高法院的一系列判决承认了与养育子女、婚姻和避孕有关的未列举的自由,这些自由与宪法隐私权有关。近半个世纪前,在罗伊诉韦德案(Roe v. Wade)中,最高法院宣布,这项宪法隐私权的范围足够广泛,足以涵盖终止妊娠的权利。多布斯案的判决推翻了罗伊案的判决,并以最强烈的措辞贬低了堕胎的权利:该判决承认堕胎是“极其错误的”,而且“与宪法相冲突”。
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
Modern American History
Modern American History Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
F. A. Hayek, Libertarianism, and the Denationalization of Money The “Other” Pro-Israel Lobby: The AFL-CIO and Israel (1952–1960) Normalizing Relations from the Cold War to the Present: Continuing War, Pursuing Peace, and Building Empire The Global Jukebox and the Celestial Monochord: Alan Lomax and Harry Smith Compute Folk Music in Cold War America Bringing “The Plant” to Life: Imagining Community Revitalization in the Neoliberal Era
×
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