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
Citations	597 U.S. (more) 2022 WL 2276808; 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3057
Argument	Oral argument
Decision	Opinion
Case history
Prior	Summary judgment granted, Jackson Women's Health Org. v. Currier, 349 F. Supp. 3d 536 (S.D. Miss. 2018) Affirmed sub nom. Jackson Women's Health Org. v. Dobbs, 945 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2019) Cert. granted, 141 S. Ct. 2619 (2021)
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; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
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 judgment)
Dissent	Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan
Laws applied
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV Mississippi Code § 41-41-191 (2018)
This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings
Roe v. Wade (1973) Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court held that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion, and overruled both Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

The case was about the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi state law that banned most abortion operations after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Mississippi's only abortion clinic, had sued Thomas E. Dobbs, state health officer with the Mississippi State Department of Health, in March 2018. Lower courts had prevented enforcement of the law with preliminary injunctions. The injunctions were based on the ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which had prevented 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 to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The ideological shift of the Supreme Court that intensified during the Trump administration and culminated with the 2020 appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett made Dobbs a potential vehicle for social conservatives to challenge Roe. Several states passed legislation, including trigger laws, to strictly regulate abortion should the newly conservative court overturn Roe. 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.

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court were held in December 2021. In May 2022, Politico published a leaked draft majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, which prompted more states to pass trigger laws. The leaked draft largely matched the final decision issued on June 24, 2022. The Court ruled 6–3 to reverse the lower court rulings; a smaller majority of five justices joined the opinion overturning Roe and Casey. The majority held that abortion was not a constitutional right, as it was not deeply rooted in the country’s history, and that individual states have the authority to regulate access to abortion services. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with the judgment upholding the Mississippi law but did not join the majority in the opinion to overturn Roe and Casey.

The decision was described as a victory for the Christian right in American politics. Officials in the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention celebrated the decision, while other Christian denominations and religious groups opposed it. Leading Republican politicians praised the decision, while their Democratic counterparts denounced it, as did many international observers. Protests and counterprotests over the decision occurred in many U.S. cities and internationally. The decision was divisive among the American public; polls suggested around 63–70% of Americans opposed overturning Roe.^[1]

Background

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade,^{[nb 1]} 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.^[2] The Court partly reaffirmed this in Planned Parenthood v. Casey,^{[nb 2]} a 1992 case that also struck down Roe's pregnancy trimester framework in favor of a fetal viability standard, typically 23 or 24 weeks into pregnancy. Casey held that 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, must be balanced with possible government interest, and may be affected by medical advancements that allow premature babies to survive at younger gestational ages.^[3]

After Roe, there was a national political realignment surrounding abortion.^[4] The abortion-rights movement in the United States initially emphasized the national policy benefits of abortion, such as smaller welfare expenses, slower population growth, and fewer illegitimate births.^[4] The abortion-rights movement drew support from the population control movement, feminists, and environmentalists. Anti-abortion advocates and civil-rights activists accused abortion-rights supporters of intending to control the population of racial minorities and the disabled, citing their ties to racial segregationists and eugenicist legal reformers. The abortion-rights movement subsequently distanced from the population control movement, and responded by taking up choice-based and rights-oriented rhetoric similar to what was used in the Roe decision.^[4][5]

Opponents of abortion 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. The anti-abortion movement in the United States 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 helped make opposition to abortion part of the Republican Party's platform by the 1990s.^[6][7] Republican-led states enacted laws to restrict abortion, including abortions earlier than Casey's general standard of 24 weeks.^[8] The courts enjoined most of these laws.^[9] 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 argued that other scientific, philosophical, and moral considerations are involved.^[3]

During the Roberts Court since 2005, there had often been a 5–4 conservative majority with the potential to overturn Roe and Casey. Among the conservative members is Justice Samuel Alito, who had sat as a Circuit Judge on the three-judge appellate panel and dissented from the court's invalidation of the spousal notification in Casey.^[10] While Chief Justice John Roberts is considered part of the conservative majority, he is also a strong proponent of stare decisis, believing that even some wrongly decided cases should not be overturned,^[11] and a staunch defender of the Court's reputation.^[12][13] Because of Roberts's position, he has been considered the swing vote in abortion cases that made it difficult for Roe or Casey to be challenged.^[14]

Since 2018, the Court's ideological makeup with respect to abortion rights shifted, with Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh's appointments alongside Alito and Clarence Thomas.^[12] Several Republican-majority states passed bills restricting abortion, anticipating a potential shift in the Supreme Court and providing possible case vehicles for bringing the issue to the Supreme Court.^[15] When Amy Coney Barrett replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court's ideological makeup shifted further, creating a 6–3 conservative majority, and providing an opportunity to overturn or additionally limit Roe and Casey.^{[9][15][16][17]} Ginsburg had generally been in the majority of past Supreme Court cases that enjoined stricter abortion laws. Conversely, Barrett held anti-abortion views; in 1998, she wrote in a law journal article that abortion is "always immoral".^{[11][18][19][20]}

Gestational Age Act

In March 2018, the Mississippi Legislature 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.^[21] The medical emergency exception allows abortions 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".^[22][23] The severe fetal abnormality exception allows abortions of fetuses whose defects will leave them incapable of living outside the womb.^[23][24]

The legislature justified this prohibition on the basis that abortions for nontherapeutic or elective reasons were "a barbaric practice, dangerous for the maternal patient, and demeaning to the medical profession".^[23][25] Another basis was that the abortion procedures forbidden under the Act were said by the legislature to carry "significant physical and psychological risks",^[23][26] and could cause various medical complications.^[23][27]

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".^[21] 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."^[21]

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.^[21] The clinic performed surgical abortions up to 16 weeks' gestation and was represented in court by the Center for Reproductive Rights.^[28] 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".^[29] Dobbs sought to have the judges consider whether fetal pain might be possible after 15 weeks, but the District Court ruled his evidence as "inadmissible and irrelevant".^[30]

The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which upheld Reeves's ruling in a 3–0 decision in December 2019.^[31] 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."^[32] A request for an en banc rehearing was denied.^[33]

In May 2019, the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi issued another injunction, this time against a newly passed Mississippi abortion law.^[34] This was a heartbeat bill that forbade most abortions when a fetus's heartbeat could be detected, which is usually from six to 12 weeks into pregnancy.^[35][36] In a February 2020 per curiam decision, the Fifth Circuit also upheld the second injunction.^[37] 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.^[38]

Supreme Court

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.^[39] In its petition, Mississippi asked the Court to revisit the viability standard on the basis of the standard's inflexibility,^[40] and inadequate accommodation of present understandings of life before birth.^[41] The filing stated that fetuses can detect pain and respond to it at 10–12 weeks gestational age,^[42] and asked the Court to allow the prohibition of "inhumane procedures".^[43] 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.^[44]

A response brief, which 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).^[45] JWHO asked the Court to deny Mississippi's petition due to judicial precedent.^[46] The brief said 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,^[47] and argued that there was therefore nothing about the case that "warrants this Court's intervention".^[48] The brief also argued that Mississippi was misinterpreting its role in abortion regulation.^[49] 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,^[50] making the Gestational Age Act "unconstitutional by any measure".^[51]

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."^[52] 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.^[53][54]

Oral argument

The case was heard on December 1, 2021. During the oral arguments, Mississippi was represented by Scott G. Stewart, a state solicitor general, and argued that the U.S. 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.^[55] Stewart also argued for overturning Roe and Casey on the basis that the decisions were unworkable and that new facts had come to light since they were made. He argued that scientific knowledge had grown about "what we know the child is doing and looks like", and claimed that we now know that fetuses are "fully human" even "very early" in gestation.^[56] 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,^[57] and claimed that the understanding of when fetuses begin to feel pain had grown.^[58] He maintained that because of Roe and Casey, the government could not respond to these facts by prohibiting pre-viability abortions.^[59]

JWHO, represented by Julie Rikelman, argued that the Court should not overrule the two decisions, because the viability standard was correct.^[60] According to Rikelman, Mississippi's arguments against Roe were not new, but instead were similar to the ones Pennsylvania made during Casey.^[61] 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.^[62] Rikelman argued that Mississippi's argument against using the undue burden standard was wrong because the standard actually specifically applies to post-viability abortion regulations rather than to the prohibition of abortions before viability.^[63] She told the Court that the undue burden standard was workable^[64] and that the viability line incorporated into the standard was likewise workable.^[65] She said that for 50 years the viability line had been clearly and consistently applied in the courts.^[66]

Elizabeth Barchas Prelogar, the U.S. Solicitor General, 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."^[67]

Based on their analysis of the questioning, Court observers said that its six conservative members were likely to uphold Mississippi's law.^[68] 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.^[69] The other conservative justices appeared to be ready to overturn Roe and Casey.^[68][70][71]

Leaked draft opinion

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Leaked Draft Opinion)

On May 2, 2022, Politico released a draft of a majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito circulated among the justices in February 2022.^[72] 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 allowed states to legislate abortion restrictions or guarantees under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.^[72][73] A New York Times article compared the sources Alito cited in the draft with information provided by historians and shed some light on the history of abortion in the United States.^[74]

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 was unclear whether they agreed with Alito's draft, as no other drafts in concurrence or dissent had yet been circulated.^[72][13] According to CNN, Chief Justice Roberts voted to uphold the Gestational Age Act but "did not want to completely overturn Roe v. Wade".^[75] 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.^[12]

The Supreme Court confirmed the draft's authenticity the next day; at the same time, the Supreme Court's press release said that "it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case".^[76][77][78] Roberts said that he had directed the Marshal of the United States Supreme 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."'^[76][79][80] 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.^[81][82][83]

In response to the leak, Roberts said, "The work of the Court will not be affected in any way."^[84] 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;^[85] Thomas commented that the Court should not be "bullied" into delivering preferred outcomes and repeated his criticisms of stare decisis.^[86] He later added that the leak was an "unthinkable breach of trust" that "fundamentally" changed the Court.^[87][88]

Leaks about Supreme Court deliberations in a pending case are rare,^[89][90] and a leak of a draft decision is unprecedented.^[91][92] There is uncertainty about whether the leak violated federal laws,^{[nb 3]} and experts differ as to whether the U.S. Department of Justice is likely to pursue criminal charges.^[94][96]

Reactions

Within hours of the news of the leak, both pro-abortion rights protesters and anti-abortion counterprotesters gathered outside the Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere in the U.S.^[97] The response to the draft put unusual public pressure on the Court as it made its decision in the case.^[98] 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.^[99][100] A leaked Department of Homeland Security (DHS) memo indicated that DHS was preparing for a surge of political violence on public officials, clergy, and abortion providers after the ruling.^[101][102] A DHS bulletin warned that the leak had spawned further violence in the summer before the 2022 midterms.^[103] A number of isolated attacks on crisis pregnancy centers were reported in May and June 2022 after the leak.^[104]

Nonviolent protests were held outside some of the justices' homes, leading the U.S. Senate to unanimously pass a bill that would temporarily expand protections for the justices and their families;^[105] that bill has stalled in the U.S. House of Representatives.^[106] Republicans have argued that those protests violate a 1950 federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1507) that criminalizes attempting to influence a judge in the course of their official duties by demonstrating near their residence.^{[105][107][108]} A man from California was arrested for attempted murder of Kavanaugh near his home over the leak and a pending decision in a gun control case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.^[109][110]

The leak renewed calls from Democrats, including President Joe Biden and pro-abortion rights activists, for the 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.^{[111][112][75][113]} It failed to pass in the Senate on May 11, after a 49–51 vote primarily along party lines.^[114][115] Biden denounced the draft opinion as "radical" and said that same-sex marriage and birth control were also at risk.^{[116][117][118]}

Republicans immediately condemned the leak and called for the Supreme Court and Department of Justice, including the FBI, to launch an investigation. Twenty-two members of Congress signed a letter asking the U.S. Attorney General and FBI director to investigate.^[119] House Republican leadership issued a joint statement that called the leak "a clearly coordinated campaign to intimidate and obstruct the Justices".^[120]

In May 2022, the Marquette University 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.^[121] In June 2022, a Gallup poll showed confidence in the Supreme Court at 25%, down from 36% in 2021, and the lowest in 50 years.^[122]

Opinion of the Court

The Court issued its decision on June 24, 2022. In a 6–3 judgment, 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.^[123][124] As a result, Dobbs is considered a landmark decision of the Court.^{[125][126][127]}

Majority opinion

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 majority decision was substantially similar to the leaked draft, with only minor changes in the original arguments and rebuttals to Justices Stephen Breyer's, Elena Kagan's, and Sonia Sotomayor's dissenting opinion and John Roberts's concurrence in judgment.^{[123][128][129]}

In its introductory statement, Alito summarized a constitutional historical view of abortion rights, saying, "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision."^[130] Alito based his argument on the criterion from Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) that a right must be "deeply rooted" in the nation's history.

That provision [the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment] 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."

— Dobbs, slip opinion p. 5 (Opinion of the Court)^[131]

Alito wrote, "abortion couldn't be constitutionally protected. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy."^[132] He wrote, "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."^[123]

In Part II of the opinion, Alito further argued that the right to an abortion was different from other privacy rights. He wrote, "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'."^[123] In addition to the language from the draft, Alito responded to the dissenting opinion, writing, "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."^[123] In Part III, Alito discussed stare decisis. He also addressed the dissent's concern that Dobbs would extend to other rights, stating that the extent of the majority opinion on Dobbs applied only to abortion.^[133] In Part IV, Alito shrugged off the concern that the American people would lose respect for the Court. He wrote that the Court "cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public's reaction to our work."^[134]

In Part V, Alito further responded to Roberts's concurrence in judgment seeking middle ground, claiming there are "serious problems with this approach" that would only prolong what he described as the turmoil of Roe.^[135] Alito argued that by only ruling that Mississippi's 15-week law is constitutional, the Court would have to later decide whether other states' laws with different deadlines for obtaining an abortion were constitutional. Since Roberts did not claim there was a constitutional right to an abortion, the Court rejected any constitutional grounds for upholding a "reasonable opportunity" to obtain an abortion and called Roberts's proposal unconstitutional.^[135]

Concurrences

Thomas and Kavanaugh wrote separate concurrences.^[124] Thomas argued that the Court should go further in future cases, reconsidering other past Supreme Court cases that granted rights based on substantive due process,^[136] such as Griswold v. Connecticut (the right to contraception), Obergefell v. Hodges (the right to same-sex marriage), and Lawrence v. Texas (banned laws against private sexual acts).^{[133][137][138]} He wrote, "Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' we have a duty to 'correct the error' established in those precedents."^[139]

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.^[140]

Concurrence in judgment

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." Roberts did not agree with the majority's ruling to overturn Roe and Casey in their entirety, finding it "unnecessary to decide the case before us".^[141] He suggested a more narrow opinion to justify the constitutionality of Mississippi's law without addressing whether to overturn Roe and Casey.^[123] Roberts also wrote that abortion regulations should "extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further."^[124] He said that the Court should "leave for another day whether to reject any right to an abortion at all."^[124]

Dissent

Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor jointly wrote the dissent.^[124] 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."^[130] Addressing the majority's argument, based on Glucksberg, that a right must be "deeply rooted in the Nation's history", the dissenters reflected on what that approach would have meant for interracial marriage.

The Fourteenth Amendment's ratifiers did not think it gave black and white people a right to marry each other. To the contrary, contemporaneous practice deemed that act quite as unprotected as abortion. Yet the Court in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967), read the Fourteenth Amendment to embrace the Lovings’ union.

— Dobbs, slip opinion p. 17 (Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., dissenting)^[142]

In response to Alito's claim that their "criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like", they wrote, "that is flat wrong. The Court's precedents about bodily autonomy, sexual and familial relations, and procreation are all interwoven—all part of the fabric of our constitutional law, and because that is so, of our lives. Especially women's lives, where they safeguard a right to self-determination."^[143] They cited New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen ("Historical evidence that long predates [ratification] may not illuminate the scope of the right"), and wrote, "Had the pre-Roe liberalization of abortion laws occurred more quickly and more widely in the 20th century, the majority would say (once again) that only the ratifiers' views are germane."^[143] They concluded, "With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent."^[123]

In response to Kavanaugh's concurrence, they wrote, "His idea is that neutrality lies in giving the abortion issue to the States, where some can go one way and some another. But would he say that the Court is being 'scrupulously neutral' if it allowed New York and California to ban all the guns they want?"^[143] The three further wrote in response to Thomas's concurrence, "The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. Either the mass of the majority's opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other."^[133]

Impact

Pre-decision

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.^[144] Oral arguments for both cases were on November 1, 2021, and decisions for both were 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.^[145] 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 oral hearings on December 1, 2021.^[53]

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.^[146] 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.^[147] 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.^[148]

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 they became enforceable after Roe was overturned.^[149] Thirteen states have trigger laws that ban most abortions in the first and second trimesters if Roe is overturned.^{[150][151][152]} The states with trigger laws are Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,^[153] North Dakota, Oklahoma,^[154][155] South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas,^[156] Utah, and Wyoming.^[157] Nine states, among them Alabama (Human Life Protection Act), Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, never repealed their pre-Roe abortion bans, such as the Texas abortion statutes (1961). Those laws were not criminally enforceable due to Roe but are enforceable with Roe overturned.^[151] 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.^[158]

Post-decision

Legality

The overturning of Roe did not make abortion illegal nationwide, contrary to a common misconception.^[163] While abortion remains legal in several states, states with trigger laws to restrict abortion in the event that Roe was overturned immediately implemented them.^[164][165] Multiple Republican governors and attorneys general moved to call special sessions to implement abortion bans or invoke their trigger laws to immediately ban abortion.^[166][167] Additionally, some states had older laws that restricted abortion but had been put on hold after Roe; after Dobbs, these states reviewed means to bring back the enforcement of these older laws. Lawsuits seeking to challenge both existing and new trigger laws based on states' constitutions were filed in multiple states, seeking injunctions to allow abortion to continue in them until the cases were resolved.^[168]

Such injunctions were granted against the trigger laws in Louisiana and Utah on June 27, 2022.^[169] Similarly, a lower state cout placed an injunction on a 1928 pre-Roe ban in Texas June 28, the week after the ruling in Dobbs, though by July 1, the Texas Supreme Court reversed this order.^[170][171] Legal efforts to block a Wisconsin pre-Roe ban from being enforced were announced on June 28;^[172] by June 30, Michigan's state supreme court had yet to react to governor Gretchen Whitmer's lawsuit alleging that the state's pre-Roe ban violated the state constitution.^[173] Abortion providers in Kentucky, Idaho, Mississippi, and Florida challenged newly passed abortion restrictions in those states, with each suit alleging that the law violated provisions of the state's constitution. By June 30, judges had halted the enforcement of the laws in Kentucky and Florida.^[174][175]

Abortion laws in states that allow abortion are expected to become more permissive following the ruling, not less; proposals by California, Oregon, and Washington state 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 in state constitutions.^[176][177] Before the Supreme Court's decision, the Vermont legislature 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.^[178]

Some U.S. House Republicans have proposed a nationwide 15-week abortion ban, while over 100 have signed onto a six-week abortion ban. Top House Republicans have been reported to be wary of such plans, instead favoring a nationwide ban on late-term abortions only.^[179]

Medical abortion options

The Court's decision also sparked concern over access to medication abortion options, including the prescription of mifepristone and misoprostol. These medications have been approved for use by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) within the first ten weeks of pregnancy. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra asserted that after the Dobbs decision, "We stand unwavering in our commitment to ensure every American has access to health care and the ability to make decisions about health care—including the right to safe and legal abortion, such as medication abortion that has been approved by the FDA for over 20 years."^[180] Despite the federal stance, states opposed to abortion were considering laws to ban access to medical abortion, including out-of-state shipments in the U.S. mail and telemedicine support.^[180] Some states seeking to block medical abortion options are also considering censoring information about this option to residents, leading to potential First Amendment legal battles.^[181] States that support abortion rights expected an influx of requests for medical abortion.^[180]

Privacy rights

Privacy rights related to data tracking through Internet usage, mobile phone usage, and mobile applications have been raised after the leak and subsequently after the decision. States with strict abortion laws could use this information to determine if women were seeking to have abortions.^[182] In addition to users taking steps to minimize their data footprint, groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation urged companies that make these apps to take steps to reduce the amount of data they collect and use end-to-end encryption to further aid those seeking abortions outside of states that have banned them.^[183] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats will introduce a bill to set certain requirements for reproductive health apps such as Flo. She said the legislation would aim to prevent data these apps collect from identifying women seeking abortions.^[184] Google announced it would delete location history data after users visit "medical facilities", including abortion clinics, counseling centers, and domestic violence shelters. The company also stated that it would introduce a way to mass-delete period data for Fitbit users.^[185]

2022 United States election season

Dobbs is expected to elevate abortion rights as a major issue in the November 2022 United States elections. Democrats, who generally support abortion rights, plan to use the issue to try to offset the 2021–2022 inflation surge and Biden's lower approval rating when Dobbs was announced. Republicans, who want to retake seats in both the House and Senate, and several state governor and legislature positions but face tight races, have some concern that the negative reaction to Dobbs could work against them. They argue that by November there will be more focus on the economy and other issues on which they expect to win.^[186]

Legal analysis

Alito's final opinion mirrored points made in the leaked draft, evaluating abortion from a historical standpoint, and arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment covers only those rights that were deep-seated at the time of its ratification in 1869, which did not include abortion.^[132] He referenced common law as far back as 17th-century English law, which had established that abortion was illegal after quickening, the point when fetal movements are detectable, about 16 to 22 weeks of gestation.^[187] Alito subsequently pointed to a wave of laws introduced in the U.S. in the 19th century that outlawed pre-quickening abortions, and claimed "abortion couldn't be constitutionally protected. Until the latter part of the 20th century, such a right was entirely unknown in American law. Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy."^[188] Some historians say that Alito's view skews the history of abortion in the U.S. and creates a flawed basis for overturning Roe.^[188][189] University of Illinois professor Leslie J. Reagan said that Alito "speciously claims" the truth of his assertions.^[190] Patricia Cline Cohen, a professor emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara, said that these laws had come about not because society saw abortion as a crime, but from a small group of white male doctors from Boston who had taken it upon themselves to prove to the rest of the county that pre-quickening abortion should be seen as a crime. The doctors used flawed math to convince the American Medical Association to accept that pre-quickening abortion should also be outlawed, leading to the raft of state laws banning abortion in the latter half of the 19th century.^[187]

Many legal observers have said the ruling creates an independent legal framework, as it lays out a state's ability to determine independent abortion laws.^[191][192] As many states have rulings prosecuting abortions, even out of state, some have argued that this produces a legal framework in which a U.S. state can act more like a sovereign country, prosecuting individuals from taking actions outside the state's legal jurisdiction.^{[193][194][195]} The enforceability and practicality of such a decision has been criticized.^{[196][197][198]} The ruling has been seen in the context of ever-increasing partisanship and political division in the country.^[199][200]

The decision raised concerns about similar rights granted by the Court that are not enumerated in the Constitution.^[133] According to Thomas's concurrence, the rights to contraceptives and to same-sex marriage could be challenged based on Dobbs, since they were not recognized during the 19th century either. Legal experts cautioned that the interpretation of the Constitution by both Alito and Thomas would be harmful to women, minorities, and other marginalized groups. University of Colorado Boulder Associate Professor of Law Scott Skinner-Thompson said, "The Court has for a long, long time said: Look, if we define liberty only in terms of what was permitted at the time of ratification of the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment, then we’re stuck in time. Because in the 18th and 19th centuries, this country was not very free for many, many people—particularly women, particularly people of color."^[201] Further, Roe itself was built on the legal reasoning from the two cases that assured contraceptive availability, Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, in which the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment establishes a "zone of personal privacy and autonomy" that the states cannot interfere with, according to Emily Berman, an associate professor at the University of Houston. Berman said that the way that Alito had rationalized overturning Roe could led to challenges to both Griswold and Eisenstadt based on the apparently lack of explicit Fourteenth Amendment coverage.^[202] Alabama used the Dobbs rationale of deeply rooted rights to argue for the lifting of a federal injunction played in May 2022 on its law that would ban sexual reassignment surgery for minors that was to go into effect in 2023.^[203]

Reaction

Support

Political

The United States anti-abortion movement praised the ruling.^[204] The National Right to Life Committee supported it.^[205][206] Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell praised the decision as "courageous and correct".^[207][208] Many other members of the Republican Party in Congress also expressed their approval.^[208][207] House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, and House Republican Conference chair Elise Stefanik released a joint statement saying in part that every "unborn child is precious, extraordinary, and worthy of protection."^[209] Senator John Cornyn responded to Obama's criticism of overruling precedent by tweeting "Now do Plessy vs Ferguson/Brown vs Board of Education"; the latter Supreme Court decision had largely overruled the former, a then-58-year-old precedent that racial segregation was constitutional.^[210][211] Republican Senators Marsha Blackburn, Cindy Hyde-Smith, and Bill Hagerty also praised the Court's ruling.^[212]

In a statement, former president Donald Trump took credit for the decision and called it "the biggest WIN for LIFE in a generation",^[213][214] although in private Trump has allegedly been more ambivalent about overturning Roe and has said it would be "bad for Republicans" since it could lead to backlash among suburban female voters in the upcoming midterm elections.^[215] Former vice president Mike Pence also praised the decision, stating that "life won", and called for a national ban on abortion.^[216]

Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said, "By properly interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court has answered the prayers of millions upon millions of Americans," adding that he would work to further restrict abortion in Florida.^[217] A new law in Florida, currently under review by state courts, would restrict abortions to 15 weeks of pregnancy, without providing exceptions for rape or incest.^[217][218] Florida Senate President Wilton Simpson, also a Republican, who was adopted as a child, argued the Court's decision would promote adoption as an alternative to abortion. Simpson said, "Florida is a state that values life."^[218]

Religious

The ruling was generally considered a victory for the Christian right.^{[219][220][221]} The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Southern Baptist Convention praised the ruling, with Catholic Archbishops José Horacio Gómez and William E. Lori and Southern Baptist President Bart Barber issuing statements for their organizations.^[222] Numerous Catholic bishops also issued individual statements in support of the ruling, including Thomas Olmsted, Robert W. McElroy, Blase J. Cupich, Thomas Paprocki, Joseph Fred Naumann, James D. Conley, Joseph W. Tobin, James S. Wall, Paul Stagg Coakley, Alexander Sample, and Wilton Daniel Gregory.^[223] The Anglican Church in North America praised the ruling, with Archbishop Foley Beach releasing a statement on it.^[224] The Haredi Orthodox Jewish organization Agudath Israel of America praised the decision.^[225]

Opposition

Politics

The United States abortion-rights movement opposed the ruling. President Joe Biden said, "It's a sad day for the Court and for the country ... the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk."^[226] Former president Barack Obama criticized the ruling as "attacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans".^[227][228] U.S. Attorney General and 2016 U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland criticized the ruling in a statement and warned states to not forbid women to seek out-of-state abortions.^[229] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra called the decision "unconscionable" and said that abortion is an essential part of healthcare.^[230] Senator Elizabeth Warren views the decision as the majority of the Supreme Court allowing religion to dictate their ruling, in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.^[231][232] Many members of the Democratic Party in Congress expressed their disappointment with the decision,^[208][207] with the Democratic National Committee stating in part that "American people don't want any of this".^[233]

Senator Susan Collins, a Republican who supports abortion rights and voted in the Senate to confirm Kavanaugh, said she felt "misled" by Kavanaugh, who said in a private meeting with her that he would not overrule Roe. Collins alleged that Kavanaugh assured her during that meeting that he is "a don't-rock-the-boat kind of judge".^[234] Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, who crossed party lines and voted to confirm both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, expressed similar views about their potential perjury, saying, "I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans."^[234] Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, a Republican, expressed disappointment in the decision and signed an executive order protecting abortion rights in the state.^[235] Governors Jay Inslee, Kate Brown, and Gavin Newsom of Washington, Oregon, and California, respectively, announced a formation of the "West Coast offense," a joint policy to allow and protect abortion rights.^[236]

Dobbs was decided in the same month as other rulings of the 2021–22 term that favored conservative politics, including Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, which weakened tribal oversight of Native American lands; New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which expanded the right for open carry of guns; Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which drew back the separation of church and state in the Establishment Clause; and West Virginia v. EPA, which weakened the power of federal agencies. Collectively, these decisions have been called a "judicial coup", including by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Ocasio-Cortez demanded that the President and Congress act to rein in the Supreme Court's power, as she considered these decisions devastating to the country.^[237][238]

Civil rights

Multiple civil and reproductive rights groups, including the NAACP, criticized the decision.^[239] The Congressional Black Caucus called for the declaration of a national emergency.^[240] Liberals argued that the ruling and Thomas's concurrence created the potential to jeopardize other civil rights.^[241] Dobbs was condemned by Harvard-affiliated law and public health experts. Laurence H. Tribe, a constitutional scholar and a professor at Harvard Law School, called it not only "reactionary" and "unprincipled" but also damaging the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution.^[242] Linda Coffee, a leading attorney for Norma McCorvey in Roe v. Wade, said the Supreme Court's decision to overturn it "flies in the face of American freedom" and "destroys dignity of all American women".^[243] Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the U.S. Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage, criticized Thomas, whose own interracial marriage required Loving v. Virginia in order to be recognized by all states, for urging the Court to revisit and overrule its prior decisions.^[244]

Health and education

The president and CEO of the Association of American Medical Colleges, David J. Skorton, released a statement that said the decision "will significantly limit access for so many and increase health inequities across the country, ultimately putting women's lives at risk, at the very time that we should be redoubling our commitment to patient-centered, evidence-based care that promotes better health for all individuals and communities." The statement further affirmed the association's commitment to providing abortion access, saying that it "will continue working with our medical schools and teaching hospitals to ensure that physicians are able to provide all patients with safe, effective, and accessible health care when they need it."^[245] The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Moria Szilagyi, released a statement that the organization reaffirmed the policy to support "adolescents right to comprehensive, evidence-based reproductive healthcare services", including abortion. She added that the ruling threatened adolescents' health and safety and jeopardized the patient-physician relationship.^[246]

Academics from the University of Minnesota School of Public Health and the University of Colorado Boulder criticized the ruling, saying that as there is going to be an increase in pregnancies, there will be an increase in maternal and infant deaths. In 2020, there were 23.8 deaths from pregnancy or childbirth-related causes for every 100,000 births, the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed country, with black mothers 2.9 times more likely to die than white mothers.^[247]

Religion

Mainline Protestants were generally critical of the decision.^[248][249] The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the United Church of Christ (UCC) criticized it, with Lutheran Bishop Elizabeth Eaton and the UCC's General Ministers issuing statements.^[222][250] Presiding Bishop Michael Curry of the Episcopal Church said he was "deeply grieved" by the decision.^[222] The Presbyterian Church expressed "sadness, anger and frustration" at the decision.^[251] Several leading members of the United Methodist Church issued criticism of the decision.^[252] Reverend Teresa Hord Owens, General Minister and President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), expressed disapproval of the decision.^[253]

Several American Jewish figures, such as the National Council of Jewish Women's CEO Sheila Katz and Hadassah's president and CEO Rhoda Smolow and Naomi Adler, respectively, and organizations like the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, Hillel International, the Rabbinical Assembly, and the Women's Rabbinic Network, opposed the decision. They cited support for legal abortion and religious freedom, disagreeing with the court's opinion and conservative Christian theology on the beginning of human personhood.^[225][254]

American Muslims' reactions were varied, as views on abortion differ within Islam. According to data released shortly before the official decision of Dobbs by the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, 56% of American Muslims said that abortion should be legal in most or all cases.^[255] Most Sunni Muslims support abortion up to 120 days (the day of ensoulment, based on the hadiths). Many were critical of Dobbs, saying it curtailed religious freedom, reflected only Christian right views, and damaged cultural and religious pluralism.^{[256][257][258]}

Sikhism is generally supportive of abortion; 65% of American Sikhs said the decision to get an abortion should the choice of the woman seeking one, and 77% said Sikh institutions should support women seeking abortions.^[255]

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".^[259] The Director-General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said, "I am very disappointed, because women's rights must be protected. And I would have expected America to protect such rights."^[260]

Western world foreign leaders generally condemned the ruling.^[261] Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called the decision "horrific", while pledging, "[I]n Canada, we will always defend the woman's right to choose."^[262][263] British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called the decision "a big step backwards", while reassuring that there were laws "throughout the UK" for a "woman's right to choose".^[264] 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".^[265] French President Emmanuel Macron, who has sought to keep abortion illegal in France past the 12-week mark,^[266] nonetheless said that "abortion is a fundamental right for all women. It must be protected." He expressed his "solidarity" with U.S. women.^[267][263] Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the decision "a huge setback" and said that her "heart cries for girls and women in the United States".^[268] New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern called the decision "incredibly upsetting" and "a loss for women everywhere".^[269] Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said he was "really troubled" by the decision, saying it is "a major step back in the fight for women's rights".^[270] Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez said that "we cannot take any right for granted" and that "women must be able to decide freely about their lives".^[268]

President of the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, praised the ruling, calling it "a powerful invitation to reflect together on the serious and urgent issue of human generativity and the conditions that make it possible".^[271][272] German politician Beatrix von Storch, Deputy Leader of the Alternative for Germany, approved of the decision, saying, "It will radiate to the entire West." Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro indirectly signaled his approval, tweeting, "May God continue to give strength and wisdom to those who protect the innocence and future of our children, in Brazil and around the world" the day the decision was released, and one day after he criticized abortion.^[273]

News

The editorial boards of many news outlets opposed the ruling, including The New York Times,^[274] The Washington Post,^[275] Los Angeles Times,^[276] Chicago Tribune,^[277] The Boston Globe,^[278] Newsday,^[279] Houston Chronicle,^[280] Miami Herald,^[281] Detroit Free Press,^[282] Star Tribune,^[283] and The Denver Post.^[284] The ruling was supported by the senior editorial staff of National Review,^[285] and the editorial boards of The Wall Street Journal,^[286] The Washington Times,^[287] and the New York Post.^[288]

Public

The decision was divisive among the American public. Around 55–60% of respondents expressed disapproval when asked if they believed Roe should be overturned.^[1] A June 2022 CBS/YouGov poll found that 58% of Americans support a federal law to protect abortion nationwide.^[289] A May 2022 Gallup poll showed that 67% of Americans support legal abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, while 55% of Americans were opposed to legal abortions in the second trimester, and 71% were opposed in the third trimester.^[290]

Large numbers of protesters gathered at the Supreme Court building after the decision's announcement.^[291] Clashes between police and protesters, resulting in tear gassing and arrests, occurred in Los Angeles, New York City, and Phoenix.^{[292][293][294]} Protests have also taken place in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City, along with solidarity protests in Berlin, London, and Toronto,^[295][296] and are planned to take place throughout the U.S. over the days after the decision.^[297] The DHS issued a memo to law enforcement agencies and first responders to be aware of potential extremist violence in the weeks following the decision, particularly at federal and state government offices, abortion clinics and other health providers, and at faith-based organizations.^[298]

The decision sparked incidents of violence by abortion-rights activists. Protesters breached a security barrier at the Arizona State Capitol and attempted to enter the building while the state legislature was in session. The proceedings were temporarily halted as lawmakers were forced into the building's basement after tear gas was fired into the crowd.^[299]

Corporate and celebrity

Corporations, including Amazon, Comcast, Dell, Disney, eBay, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Meta, Netflix, Paramount, Snap, Sony, Tesla, and Yelp, said they would cover travel benefits for employees seeking abortions in states that protected abortion access.^{[300][301][302]} Levi Strauss & Co. affirmed its support for abortion access.^[303] Several technology executives have condemned the ruling.^[304]

Multiple celebrities criticized the ruling.^{[305][306][307][308]}

The NBA and WNBA released a joint statement supporting the right to abortion. The National Women's Soccer League Players Association also condemned the ruling.^[309][310]

See also

• 2022 abortion protests
• Abortion law inside and outside the United States
• List of United States Supreme Court leaks

Footnotes

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.
• Keefe, John; Shelton, Shania; Iyer, Kaanita; Lee, JiMin; Phillips, Ariella; Uzquiano, Kenneth; Hickey, Christopher (June 27, 2022). "Track changes between the Supreme Court abortion decision and the leaked draft". CNN. Retrieved June 28, 2022. Overall, most of the leaked draft remained as written in the final ruling. While some parts were taken out, Alito's opinion added more to the final ruling — including a critique of the dissenting opinions — than he removed.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (draft opinion)

Written opinions

• Text of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is available from: Cornell  CourtListener  Findlaw  Justia 

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.