SYMPOSIUM

Why the Dobbs decision won’t imperil pregnancy-related medical care

This article is part of a symposium on the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Elizabeth R. Kirk is director of the Center for Law & the Human Person at the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America. She is an associate scholar at Charlotte Lozier Institute. Dr. Ingrid Skop is an obstetrician-gynecologist and is senior fellow and director of medical affairs at Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Many are grappling with the legal and practical consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs to overturn Roe v. Wade. Among the most common claims of politicians and media pundits is that the court’s decision means that states that choose to limit or ban abortion will also prohibit women from receiving life-saving medical care for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages. Indeed, the dissent predicts that, as a result of its decision in Dobbs, “the Court may face questions about the application of abortion regulations to medical care most people view as quite different from abortion. … [H]ow about the use of dilation and evacuation or medication for miscarriage management?”

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Thursday, July 7

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.

Here’s the Thursday morning read:

• Supreme Court Eases Biden’s Way to Ending “Remain in Mexico” Program, but Termination Is Not a Done Deal (Peter Margulies, Lawfare)
• A Supreme Court ruling for those who believe in second chances (Van Jones & Nisha Anand, CNN)
• How The Supreme Court Could Turbocharge Gerrymandering — Just In Time for 2024 (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux & Nathaniel Rakich, FiveThirtyEight)
• The Supreme Court Saves Politics (Daniel Henninger, The Wall Street Journal)
• How the Supreme Court Became the Extreme Court (Elie Mystal, The Nation)

SYMPOSIUM

Dobbs, Obergefell, and “the critical moral question posed by abortion”

This article is part of a symposium on the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Stephen G. Gilles is a professor of law at Quinnipiac University School of Law.

Grant him Glucksberg’s “deeply rooted in our history and tradition” test for implied fundamental rights, and Justice Samuel Alito’s Dobbs opinion abolishing the constitutional right to an abortion is irrefutable. But as the Dobbsdissenters objected, Alito ignored the fact that Obergefell v. Hodges — the court’s most recent implied rights case – expressly refused to use the Glucksberg test, which it found “inconsistent with the approach this Court has used in discussing other fundamental rights, including marriage and intimacy.” Obergefell’s approach, as the Dobbs dissenters point out, holds that “applications of liberty and equality can evolve while re­maining grounded in constitutional principles, constitu­tional history, and constitutional precedents.”

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Wednesday, July 6

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.

Here’s the Wednesday morning read:

• The Supreme Court’s Partisan Divide Hasn’t Been This Sharp In Generations (Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux & Laura Bronner, FiveThirtyEight)
• The Supreme Court’s EPA Decision Could Hamper Regulators’ Ability to Protect the Public (Lisa Song, ProPublica)
• Where the Supreme Court Is and How It Got Here (Ilya Shapiro, Newsweek)
• The Supreme Court Case That Could ‘End American Democracy’ (Alan Greenblatt, Governing)
• Still No Peace at the Justices’ Houses (Editorial, The Wall Street Journal)

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, July 5

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.

Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• The Supreme Court is the most conservative in 90 years (Nina Totenberg, NPR)
• A Transformative Term at the Most Conservative Supreme Court in Nearly a Century (Adam Liptak, The New York Times)
• With sweep and speed, Supreme Court’s conservatives ignite a new era (Robert Barnes, The Washington Post)
• The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Have Asserted Their Power (Jeannie Suk Gersen, The New Yorker)
• Supreme Court marshal asked Maryland and Virginia governors to protect justices. Here’s what they said. (Ariane de Vogue & Veronica Stracqualursi, CNN)