A Critical Analysis of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the Consequences of Fetal Personhood

Bibliographic Data

ID21598374
AuthorsBertha Alvarez Manninen (Arizona State University, corresponding author)
Year2023
Volume32
Issue3
Pages357-367
Publication date2023-07-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueCambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0963-1801 • E-ISSN: 1469-2147
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s0963180122000809
PMID36647699
OpenAlexW4316673042
LanguageEN
References cited5

In this paper, I will examine the Supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) arguments in the majority decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and I will show how some of those arguments are flawed. Primarily, I will show that the right to bodily autonomy is a well-established right, both in the courts and in societal practices, and that the right to an abortion should be understood as an example of the right to bodily autonomy or bodily integrity. Second, I will examine the justices’ arguments that viability is not a reasonable place to restrict abortion access, in contrast to both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey , and will offer arguments that defend viability as a valid point to limit abortion access. Third, I will highlight some politicians’ goals to enact a federal ban on abortion, and show how the attempt to pass Personhood Amendments is a pathway for doing so. The upshot of this essay to is show how the SCOTUS decision is flawed, and how granting personhood to “potential life” has consequences that extend beyond abortion access

Abortion · Autonomy · Epistemology · Law and economics · Personhood · Political science · Sociology · Supreme court · Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare · Law · Philosophy · Reproductive Health and Contraception · Reproductive Health and Technologies

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access