Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: Origins, Majority Opinion and Main Reasons

Research Article
Open access

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: Origins, Majority Opinion and Main Reasons

Yixiang Zuo 1*
  • 1 Wellington College International Tianjin    
  • *corresponding author yixiang.zuo.2024@wellingtoncollege.cn
Published on 26 October 2023 | https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/14/20231002
LNEP Vol.14
ISSN (Print): 2753-7056
ISSN (Online): 2753-7048
ISBN (Print): 978-1-83558-053-0
ISBN (Online): 978-1-83558-054-7

Abstract

Abortion rights has always been the controversial debate in the United States. Such debate is sparked again with the landmark case in 2022 of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which the 50 years of legal precedent in Roe v. Wade is overruled. This paper will explore the origins of abortion rights and even the right of privacy in general from previous cases, examine the reasoning in the majority opinion and form some other causes that caused the decision to be made. Ultimately, the paper will draw to a conclusion that there are many factors that contributed to the decision being made and a suggestion that citizens may achieve more success in their political belief when relying on legislative powers rather than the judiciary.

Keywords:

constitution, supreme court, abortion rights, Roe v. Wade

Zuo,Y. (2023). Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: Origins, Majority Opinion and Main Reasons. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,14,270-276.
Export citation

References

[1]. Hannan, J. (2021-2022). Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the Likely End of the Roe v. Wade Era. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 17, 281-286.

[2]. Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Dobbs, 945 F.3d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 2019)

[3]. Roe, 410 U.S. at 164.

[4]. Roraback, C. G. (1989). Griswold v. Connecticut: Brief Case History. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 16, 395-402.

[5]. U.S. Const. amend. IX.

[6]. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) at 481-552.

[7]. Helscher, D. (1994). Griswold v. Connecticut and the Unenumerated Right of Privacy. Northern Illinois University Law Review, 15, 33-61.

[8]. Wardle, L. D. (1998). Loving v. virginia and the constitutional right to marry, 1970-1990. Howard Law Journal, 41(2), 289-348.

[9]. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) at 12.

[10]. U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

[11]. Calabresi, S.G. and Matthews A. (2012) Originalism and Loving v. Virginia. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2012, 1393-1471.

[12]. Wharton, L.J., Frietsche, S. and Kolbert, K. (2006). Preserving the Core of Roe. Reflections on Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 18, 317-387.

[13]. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) at 878.

[14]. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 9-116.

[15]. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) at 702-735.

[16]. Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hearing Before S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 318 (2006).

[17]. Akron v. Akron Ctr. For Reprod. Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983) at 416-420.

[18]. Thornburgh v. Amer. Coll. Of Obstetricians, 476 U.S. 747 (1986).

[19]. Perry, S.P and Jipping T. (2021) Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: An Opportunity to Correct a Grave Error. The Heritage Foundation, 293, 1-22.

[20]. Roosevelt, K. (2003). Shaky Basis for a Constitutional Right, Wash. Post.


Cite this article

Zuo,Y. (2023). Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: Origins, Majority Opinion and Main Reasons. Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media,14,270-276.

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 4th International Conference on Educational Innovation and Philosophical Inquiries

ISBN:978-1-83558-053-0(Print) / 978-1-83558-054-7(Online)
Editor:Javier Cifuentes-Faura, Enrique Mallen
Conference website: https://www.iceipi.org/
Conference date: 7 August 2023
Series: Lecture Notes in Education Psychology and Public Media
Volume number: Vol.14
ISSN:2753-7048(Print) / 2753-7056(Online)

© 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).

References

[1]. Hannan, J. (2021-2022). Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the Likely End of the Roe v. Wade Era. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 17, 281-286.

[2]. Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Dobbs, 945 F.3d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 2019)

[3]. Roe, 410 U.S. at 164.

[4]. Roraback, C. G. (1989). Griswold v. Connecticut: Brief Case History. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 16, 395-402.

[5]. U.S. Const. amend. IX.

[6]. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) at 481-552.

[7]. Helscher, D. (1994). Griswold v. Connecticut and the Unenumerated Right of Privacy. Northern Illinois University Law Review, 15, 33-61.

[8]. Wardle, L. D. (1998). Loving v. virginia and the constitutional right to marry, 1970-1990. Howard Law Journal, 41(2), 289-348.

[9]. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) at 12.

[10]. U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

[11]. Calabresi, S.G. and Matthews A. (2012) Originalism and Loving v. Virginia. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2012, 1393-1471.

[12]. Wharton, L.J., Frietsche, S. and Kolbert, K. (2006). Preserving the Core of Roe. Reflections on Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 18, 317-387.

[13]. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) at 878.

[14]. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 9-116.

[15]. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) at 702-735.

[16]. Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hearing Before S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 109th Cong. 318 (2006).

[17]. Akron v. Akron Ctr. For Reprod. Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983) at 416-420.

[18]. Thornburgh v. Amer. Coll. Of Obstetricians, 476 U.S. 747 (1986).

[19]. Perry, S.P and Jipping T. (2021) Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization: An Opportunity to Correct a Grave Error. The Heritage Foundation, 293, 1-22.

[20]. Roosevelt, K. (2003). Shaky Basis for a Constitutional Right, Wash. Post.