Hostname: page-component-6dbcb7884d-lhnfz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-14T08:09:18.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

INTRODUCTION: Securing Reproductive Justice After Dobbs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2023

Aziza Ahmed ,
Nicole Huberfeld Open the ORCID record for Nicole Huberfeld [Opens in a new window]  and
Linda C. McClain
Aziza Ahmed
Affiliation:
BOSTON UNIVERSITY, BOSTON, MA, USA.
Nicole Huberfeld
Affiliation:
BOSTON UNIVERSITY, BOSTON, MA, USA.
Linda C. McClain
Affiliation:
BOSTON UNIVERSITY, BOSTON, MA, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When we conceptualized this symposium, Roe v. Wade1 was still the law of the land, albeit precariously. We aimed to commemorate its fiftieth anniversary by exploring historical, legal, medical, and related dimensions of access to abortion as well as the challenges ahead to secure reproductive justice. With the leak of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on May 2, 2022, we shifted to mark the dawn of a new era. In the nearly identical official opinion announced on June 24, 2022,2 Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority (6-3), overturned Roe and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.3

Keywords

RoeDobbsAbortionReproductive JusticeReproductive Health Care
Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 51 , Issue 3: Seeking Reproductive Justice in the Next 50 Years , Fall 2023 , pp. 463 - 467
Copyright
© 2023 The Author(s)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022).Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).Google Scholar
Roe, 410 U.S., at 153-54.Google Scholar
Casey, 505 U.S. at 851.Google Scholar
Id. at 877-88.Google Scholar
Brief of Amici Curiae Reproductive Scholars Supporting Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, at 28, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022) (No. 19-1392). Aziza Ahmed, co-editor of this symposium, joined that brief.Google Scholar
Dobbs, 142 S. Ct. at 2246-54.Google Scholar
Brief of Equal Protection Constitutional Law Scholars Serena Mayeri, Melissa Murray, and Reva Siegel as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022) (No. 19-1392); Dobbs, 142 S. Ct. at 2245-46.Google Scholar
Dobbs, 142 S. Ct. at 2243, 2284.Google Scholar
Id. at 2318 (Breyer, J., Sotomayor, J., and Kagan, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
Id. at 2343, 2350.Google Scholar
Guinier, L. and Torres, G., The Miner’s Canary: Enlisting Race, Resisting Power, Transforming Democracy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003).Google Scholar