Dobbs , Gender Animus, and the Impact on Abortion Providers

Bibliographic Data

ID6409494
AuthorsLori Brown (Syracuse University), Alesha E Doan (0000-0002-1348-9023, University of Kansas), Paul Ehrlich, Shoshanna Ehrlich, S Paul Ehrlich (University of Massachusetts Boston)
Year2024
Volume45
Issue1
Pages27-44
Publication date2024-01-02
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueWomen & Politics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0195-7732 • E-ISSN: 1540-9473
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/1554477x.2024.2300170
OpenAlexW4391077380
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited20

In this article we engage in a critical legal analysis of the Supreme Court's decision in (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization). We argue that by refusing to connect opposition to abortion with "invidiously discriminatory animus against women" (2246), the Court successfully insulated itself from having to consider the devastating impact overturning Roe v. Wade (Roe) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Casey) would have on women's lives with a disparate impact on structurally marginalized communities. Through an examination of the opinion of the dissenting Justices, we highlight the operationalization of gender animus as the "curtailment of women's rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens" (2318). Against this legal backdrop, we draw upon 22 semi-structured interviews to examine gender animus through the lived experiences of clinicians practicing in both abortion prohibitive and abortion protective states. Participants discuss how gender animus has manifested through their sense of professional and legal precarity and the impact of abortion restrictions and bans on their patients

Abortion · Dissenting opinion · Operationalization · Opposition (politics · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Supreme court · Feminist Theory and Gender Studies · Gender Studies · Law · Reproductive Health and Contraception · Reproductive Health and Technologies

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access