Download pdf
Reevaluating the Constitutionality of Abortion: Can U.S. Jurisprudence Truly Protect Women’s Interests in a Post-Roe America?
- 1 Stevenson School
- 2 Southeast University
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Abstract
This Article examines the U.S. Supreme Court's evolving constitutional frameworks for abortion rights. It traces the shift from Roe v. Wade's privacy-based rationale to Planned Parenthood v. Casey's undue burden standard. While Roe and Casey attempted to balance state interests with women's reproductive autonomy, they ultimately fell short of fully addressing the unique social, economic, and psychological burdens women face. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization introduced a historical tradition approach, rejecting this balancing test and returning regulatory power to states. This decision undermines women's autonomy and complicates democratic access, particularly for marginalized groups. Recognizing the limitations of Roe and Casey in fully protecting women's equality and critiquing Dobbs' unbalanced historical focus, this Article proposes a new framework that prioritizes women's needs. Drawing on international perspectives, such as Japan's emphasis on family and societal welfare, it argues that centering women's lived experiences, including the often-overlooked burdens of motherhood, is essential for crafting a reproductive rights model that balances individual autonomy with social equity
Keywords
Abortion Rights, Privacy Framework, Balance of Interests, Reproductive Justice, Constitutional Interpretation
[1]. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
[2]. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022).
[3]. The Evolution of the Right to Privacy After Roe v. Wade. American Journal of Law & Medicine. 1987;13(2-3):365–525.
[4]. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
[5]. Cornell Law School. Privacy [Internet]. LII / Legal Information Institute. 2007. Available from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Privacy
[6]. Birbrair L. 50 years of privacy since Griswold: Gertner, Suk and Tribe discuss landmark case [Internet]. Harvard Law School. 2023. Available from: https://hls.harvard.edu/today/50-years-privacy-since-griswold/
[7]. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).
[8]. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
[9]. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
[10]. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
[11]. Metzger GE. Unburdening the Undue Burden Standard: Orienting “Casey” in Constitutional Jurisprudence. Columbia Law Review. 1994 Oct;94(6):2025.
[12]. Jordan K. The Emerging Use of a Balancing Approach in Casey’s Undue Burden Analysis. Journal of Constitutional Law. 2015 Dec;18.
[13]. Wex Definitions Team. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) [Internet]. LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School; 2022. Available from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/dobbs_v._jackson_women%27s_health_organization_%282022%29
[14]. Hutchinson D. Thinly Rooted: Dobbs, Tradition, and Reproductive Justice. Arizona Law Review. 2023;65.
[15]. Tang A. After Dobbs: History, Tradition, and the Uncertain Future of a Nationwide Abortion Ban. Stanford Law Review. 2023 May;75.
[16]. Murray M, Shaw K. Dobbs and Democracy. Harvard Law Review. 2024 Jan;137(3).
[17]. Women in State Legislatures 2024 [Internet]. cawp.rutgers.edu. Center for American Women and Politics; 2024. Available from: https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/levels-office/state-legislature/women-state-legislatures-2024
[18]. Women in the U.S. Senate 2024 [Internet]. cawp.rutgers.edu. Center for American Women and Politics; 2024. Available from: https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/levels-office/congress/women-us-senate-2024
[19]. Women in the U.S. House of Representatives 2024 [Internet]. cawp.rutgers.edu. Center for American Women and Politics; 2024. Available from: https://cawp.rutgers.edu/facts/levels-office/congress/women-us-house-representatives-2024
[20]. Heerwig JA, Gordon KM. Buying a Voice: Gendered Contribution Careers among Affluent Political Donors to Federal Elections, 1980-2008. Sociological Forum. 2018 May 16;33(3):805–25.
[21]. Sanbonmatsu K, Gothreau C. The Money Race for the State Legislature. Center for Woman and Politics. 2020;
[22]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Abortion Surveillance -United States, 2021 [Internet]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2023 [cited 2023 Nov 24]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/ss/pdfs/ss7209a1-H.pdf
[23]. Igielnik R, Keeter S, Hartig H. Behind Biden’s 2020 Victory [Internet]. Pew Research Center. 2021. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/
[24]. Borovoy A. Beyond Choice: A New Framework for Abortion? Dissent. 2011;58(4):73–9.
[25]. Schneider E. The Synergy of Equality and Privacy in Women’s Rights. University of Chicago Legal Forum. 2002;2022(1).
[26]. Finer L. Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2005 Sep;37(3).
[27]. Smith P. Responsibilities for Life: How Abortion Serves Women’s Interests in Motherhood. Journal of Law and Policy. 2008;17(1).
[28]. Jones RK, Darroch JE, Henshaw SK. Patterns in the Socioeconomic Characteristics of Women Obtaining Abortions in 2000-2001. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2002 Sep;34(5):226.
[29]. Barber JS, Axinn WG, Thornton A. Unwanted Childbearing, Health, and Mother-Child Relationships. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1999 Sep;40(3):231.
[30]. Hendricks JS. Body and Soul: Equality, Pregnancy, and the Unitary Right to Abortion. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. 2010;45.
[31]. Markowitz D. Ruth Ginsburg; Women’s Rights Advocate--Supreme Court Justice. Vermont Bar Journal & Law Digest. 1994 Oct;
Cite this article
Rong,Y.;Zhang,Y. (2025).Reevaluating the Constitutionality of Abortion: Can U.S. Jurisprudence Truly Protect Women’s Interests in a Post-Roe America?.Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,81,8-25.
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study will be available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer/Publisher's Note
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s). EWA Publishing and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content
About volume
Volume title: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Social Psychology and Humanity Studies
© 2024 by the author(s). Licensee EWA Publishing, Oxford, UK. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license. Authors who
publish this series agree to the following terms:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the series right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this
series.
2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the series's published
version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial
publication in this series.
3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and
during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See
Open access policy for details).