Should Constitutional Rights Reflect Popular Opinion? Interpreting Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22130907 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mary Ziegler (0000-0002-8129-1318, University of California, Davis, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 88-92 |
| Publication date | 2023-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Modern American History (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2397-1851 • E-ISSN: 2515-0456 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/mah.2023.6 |
| OpenAlex | W4379987170 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 10 |
In June 2022, the Supreme Court handed down a decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization , which dismantled a fundamental right to choose abortion. A line of Supreme Court decisions dating back to the 1920s recognized unenumerated liberties related to parenting, marriage, and contraception tied to the constitutional right to privacy. Almost half a century ago, in Roe v. Wade , the Supreme Court declared that this constitutional right to privacy was broad enough to encompass the right to terminate a pregnancy. The Dobbs decision reversed Roe and disparaged the right to abortion in the strongest terms: the decision recognizing it was “egregiously wrong” and “on a collision course with the Constitution.”
Abortion · Civil liberties · Constitution · Constitutional law · Constitutional right · Human rights · Majority opinion · Political science · Politics · Pregnancy · Right to privacy · Sociology · Substantive due process · Supreme court · Supreme Court Decisions · The Right to Privacy · Law · Legal Systems and Judicial Processes · Reproductive Health and Contraception · Reproductive Health and Technologies
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2026 (3) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |