Protecting Health after Dobbs
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court eliminated the long-standing federal constitutional right to abortion. Discussions of Dobbs tend to emphasize the loss of protection for reproductive choice. But Dobbs also eroded protection for a related yet distinctly importan...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Published: |
Wiley
2022
|
In: |
The Hastings Center report
Year: 2022, Volume: 52, Issue: 6, Pages: 6-7 |
Further subjects: | B
reproductive choice
B Pregnancy B Health B Bioethics B Roe B Dobbs B reproductive regulation B Abortion |
Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Summary: | In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court eliminated the long-standing federal constitutional right to abortion. Discussions of Dobbs tend to emphasize the loss of protection for reproductive choice. But Dobbs also eroded protection for a related yet distinctly important interest that served under Roe v. Wade as a check on government regulation of reproduction: the preservation of health. This erasure has opened the door to increasingly restrictive and punitive abortion bans, which are causing providers to deny or delay care that is necessary to prevent harm to both pregnant and nonpregnant patients. Federal regulatory attempts to prevent these harms will have limited impact, partially due to Congress's own history of exceptionalizing abortion in ways that devalue health. Only federal legislation can ensure adequate and enduring protection for the health of women, trans men, and other patients targeted for reproductive control because of their capacity for pregnancy. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1552-146X |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Hastings Center, The Hastings Center report
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1002/hast.1441 |