Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: An Opportunity to Correct a Grave Error

To that end, Means made two primary claims that the Supreme Court would later embrace: American women enjoyed a “liberty of abortion” under the common law “at every stage of gestation,”21 and the 19th-century statutes that replaced the common law were enacted “to protect the health of mothers, not to protect the lives of unborn children.”22 This narrative “simply left the unborn child out of the m. [...] Griswold said that the right to privacy is found in the penumbra of the Bill of Rights, Eisenstadt extended Griswold but on equal protection grounds, and the district court in Roe said that the right to abortion is found in the Ninth Amendment. [...] In Roe, the Supreme Court added multiple jurisprudential wrinkles by holding that the right to privacy is instead “founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty.”81 The Court thus appeared to transplant the requirement of a “compelling state interest” for infringing on a “fundamental” right from the equal protection to the due process context,82 but failing to apply this standa. [...] The authors opined that at least one factor motivating the Court to grant review of a case is the perception that at least some Justices thought that the case below was wrongly decided.197 As the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was duty bound in Dobbs to affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for plaintiff abortion providers because of Roe and Casey’s unyielding grasp, and becau. [...] Given the conflict between the plain terms of the Act, and the Court’s determinations in Roe and Casey that states may not prohibit abortions prior to viability, taken together with the Court’s caution that states possess interests “from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting (1) the health of the mother and (2) the life of the fetus that may become a child,”210 many legal scholars consider the.