The Supreme Court ruling Dobbs v Jackson (2021) is the ruling which overturned Roe v Wade. Before digging into Chapter 14 of the Project 2025 document which covers the Department of Health and Human Services, the section which touches on a number of sensitive domestic issues such as abortion and LGBT rights, I wanted to drill down into what Dobbs said–in order to see if any of the recommendations made in Project 2025 was precluded by that Supreme Court ruling.
Could you summarize the Supreme Court ruling contained in the document “Dobbs”?
The document contains the Supreme Court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Here are the key points of the ruling:
-
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, overruling Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).
-
The majority opinion, written by Justice Alito, argues that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions, and is not protected by any constitutional provision.
-
The Court returned the issue of abortion regulation to the states, allowing them to regulate or ban abortions throughout pregnancy.
-
The ruling upheld Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, which bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
-
The decision was 6-3, with Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissenting.
-
Chief Justice Roberts concurred with the judgment but did not join the majority in completely overturning Roe and Casey.
-
The majority emphasized that this decision applies only to abortion and should not be understood to cast doubt on other precedents related to privacy rights.
-
The dissenting opinion strongly criticized the majority's reasoning and warned of potential consequences for women's rights and other constitutional protections.
-
The ruling represents a significant shift in American constitutional law and abortion rights, effectively ending the federal constitutional protection for abortion that had been in place for nearly 50 years.
This landmark decision has far-reaching implications for abortion access in the United States, returning the power to regulate abortion to individual states.
What was the argument that suggested that the right to abortion was not found in our Constitution?
The majority opinion in Dobbs, authored by Justice Alito, argued that the right to abortion is not found in the Constitution based on several key points:
-
Textual absence: The Constitution does not explicitly mention abortion or protect it as a right. The majority argues that for an unenumerated right to be protected, it must be deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions.
-
Historical analysis: The opinion conducts an extensive historical review, claiming that abortion was not considered a right at the time of the 14th Amendment's ratification in 1868. In fact, the majority argues that most states had criminalized abortion by that time.
-
Rejection of substantive due process: The Court criticizes the use of "substantive due process" to create rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, arguing this approach lacks clear guidelines and can be subjective.
-
Distinguishing other privacy rights: The majority argues that abortion is fundamentally different from other rights (like contraception or same-sex marriage) because it terminates potential life, making it unique and not automatically protected by other privacy-related precedents.
-
Criticism of Roe and Casey: The opinion argues that these previous decisions were poorly reasoned, created an arbitrary viability standard, and overstepped the Court's role by making policy rather than interpreting the Constitution.
-
State interest: The majority emphasizes that states have legitimate interests in protecting potential life and maternal health, which should be weighed against any claimed right to abortion.
-
Democratic process: The opinion suggests that abortion regulation should be left to the democratic process in each state, rather than being imposed by the Court as a constitutional right.
In essence, the majority argues that because abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, was not historically protected as a right, and involves unique moral and policy considerations, it should not be considered a constitutionally protected right under the 14th Amendment or any other provision.
Does this argument preclude the US Congress from taking action to legalize or make illegal abortion, except under very limited circumstances? That is, does it mean Congress cannot pass a law which (say) outlaws abortion nation-wide or legalizes abortion nation-wide?
The Dobbs decision itself does not directly preclude Congress from taking action on abortion at the national level. In fact, the ruling primarily focuses on removing abortion from the realm of constitutionally protected rights and returning the issue to the legislative process. However, there are some important considerations:
-
State authority: The ruling emphasizes returning the power to regulate abortion to the states. This could potentially create a conflict if Congress were to pass a nationwide law.
-
Constitutional basis: For Congress to pass a nationwide abortion law, it would need to rely on a constitutional power, such as the Commerce Clause. The constitutionality of such a law could be challenged and would likely end up before the Supreme Court.
-
Federalism issues: A federal law on abortion could face challenges based on principles of federalism and states' rights, especially given the Dobbs decision's emphasis on state authority in this area.
-
Limited circumstances: Congress likely has clearer authority to legislate on abortion in areas of clear federal jurisdiction, such as federal lands or in relation to interstate commerce.
-
Potential future rulings: The Court did not explicitly rule on Congress's power to legislate on abortion, leaving this question open for potential future cases.
-
Political reality: While the ruling doesn't legally preclude Congressional action, it may have shifted the political landscape in a way that makes such action more challenging.
In summary, while Dobbs doesn't explicitly prevent Congress from passing nationwide abortion legislation, it does create a legal and political environment that could make such action more complicated and subject to legal challenges. The constitutionality of any such law would likely depend on its specific provisions and the constitutional basis invoked for its enactment.
How could the Interstate Commerce Clause apply to abortion?
The Interstate Commerce Clause could potentially apply to abortion in several ways:
-
Travel for abortion services: Congress could potentially regulate interstate travel for the purpose of obtaining abortions, as this involves crossing state lines and could be considered interstate commerce.
-
Abortion medication: The distribution and sale of abortion medications across state lines could be regulated under the Commerce Clause.
-
Medical equipment: The sale and transport of medical equipment used in abortion procedures across state lines could fall under interstate commerce.
-
Telemedicine: Abortion services provided via telemedicine across state lines could be considered interstate commerce.
-
Insurance coverage: Federal regulation of insurance policies that cover abortion, especially when these policies are sold across state lines.
-
Abortion providers: Regulating abortion providers who operate in multiple states or receive patients from other states.
-
Economic impact: Congress could argue that the availability or restriction of abortion services has a substantial effect on interstate commerce by impacting women's participation in the workforce and economy across state lines.
-
Medical training: Regulation of medical education and training related to abortion procedures, especially when students or professionals cross state lines for this training.
However, it's important to note that using the Commerce Clause for abortion regulation would likely face legal challenges. The Supreme Court has placed some limits on the reach of the Commerce Clause in recent decades. Any attempt to use it for comprehensive abortion regulation would need to demonstrate a substantial relation to interstate commerce.
Additionally, such use of the Commerce Clause could conflict with principles of federalism emphasized in the Dobbs decision. The Court might scrutinize whether such a law improperly infringes on state authority to regulate abortion, as emphasized in Dobbs.
Ultimately, the constitutionality of any federal abortion law based on the Commerce Clause would depend on its specific provisions and how the Court interprets the scope of congressional power in this context.
So, in summary, any action Congress takes on the question of abortion would face an uphill political fight?
Yes, that's an accurate summary. Any action Congress might take on abortion would indeed face a significant uphill political battle, for several reasons:
-
Polarization: Abortion remains one of the most divisive issues in American politics, with deeply entrenched positions on both sides.
-
Narrow majorities: The current composition of Congress features very narrow majorities, making it difficult to pass controversial legislation.
-
Filibuster: In the Senate, the filibuster rule effectively requires 60 votes to pass most legislation, a high bar for such a contentious issue.
-
State vs. federal authority: The Dobbs decision emphasized returning abortion regulation to the states, potentially complicating arguments for federal action.
-
Legal challenges: Any federal law would likely face immediate legal challenges, potentially reaching the Supreme Court.
-
Midterm elections: The approaching midterm elections add another layer of political complexity, as lawmakers may be hesitant to take controversial stances.
-
Competing priorities: Other pressing issues like the economy, healthcare, and climate change may take precedence in the legislative agenda.
-
Public opinion: While polls show a majority of Americans support some abortion rights, there's less consensus on specific policies or federal vs. state control.
Given these factors, passing comprehensive federal legislation on abortion would require overcoming significant political obstacles, regardless of which direction (for or against abortion rights) such legislation might take.