Freedom From Choice: The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson
| Autor(a) principal: | |
|---|---|
| Data de Publicação: | 2023 |
| Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
| Idioma: | eng |
| Título da fonte: | Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) |
| Texto Completo: | https://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/998 |
Resumo: | This article explores the last bastion of slavery in the USA – motherhood – as circumscribed by two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases about abortion: Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) and the case it overruled, Roe v. Wade (1973). These two cases bookend a half century fraught with controversy that began when Roe v. Wade allowed pregnant patients to decide whether they want a legal abortion under USA law. The contrary opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson allowing individual states of the USA to prohibit abortion in the same time frame in which Roe v. Wade allowed patients to have an abortion (and explicitly overruling Roe v. Wade) exploded when a draft opinion was released across international social media – igniting protests at the gates of judges homes and during off duty activities such as eating in a restaurant. Beyond the implications of this unprecedented response towards legitimate juridical pronouncements in a democracy that prides itself on protecting free speech, the billions of dollars spent lobbying around abortion laws and the small number of pregnancies involved annually suggests that these cases are about unspoken issues that do not surface in the Supreme Court. This article therefore explores the notion that the public uproar about abortion masks the societal need for several important conversations that have not occurred. Under this view, close examination of cases that mark the beginning and end of U.S. Supreme Court case law regarding abortion posits a distraction from unresolved fundamental problems about public health. Achieving the goal of developing rational legislation that clarifies these issues to move towards resolution requires however a Constitutional base that presently does not exist in USA law. Therefore, this article proposes a U.S. Constitutional Amendment protecting the right to health that would provide a strong foundation for case law regarding medical decisions ostensibly protected by the abortion case law. Invited article |
| id |
FIOCRUZ-3_98c68cfd054602d59707e8805b7e4bbb |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br:article/998 |
| network_acronym_str |
FIOCRUZ-3 |
| network_name_str |
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) |
| repository_id_str |
|
| spelling |
Freedom From Choice: The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v. JacksonLiberdad de elegir: la decisión de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en Dobbs v. JacksonLiberdade para escolher: a decisão da Suprema Corte dos EUA no caso Dobbs v. JacksonAborto LegalDerecho a la SaludDecisiones de la Corte SupremaJurisprudenciaAborto LegalDireito à SaúdeDecisões da Suprema CorteJurisprudênciaLegal AbortionRight to HealthSupreme Court DecisionsJurisprudenceThis article explores the last bastion of slavery in the USA – motherhood – as circumscribed by two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases about abortion: Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) and the case it overruled, Roe v. Wade (1973). These two cases bookend a half century fraught with controversy that began when Roe v. Wade allowed pregnant patients to decide whether they want a legal abortion under USA law. The contrary opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson allowing individual states of the USA to prohibit abortion in the same time frame in which Roe v. Wade allowed patients to have an abortion (and explicitly overruling Roe v. Wade) exploded when a draft opinion was released across international social media – igniting protests at the gates of judges homes and during off duty activities such as eating in a restaurant. Beyond the implications of this unprecedented response towards legitimate juridical pronouncements in a democracy that prides itself on protecting free speech, the billions of dollars spent lobbying around abortion laws and the small number of pregnancies involved annually suggests that these cases are about unspoken issues that do not surface in the Supreme Court. This article therefore explores the notion that the public uproar about abortion masks the societal need for several important conversations that have not occurred. Under this view, close examination of cases that mark the beginning and end of U.S. Supreme Court case law regarding abortion posits a distraction from unresolved fundamental problems about public health. Achieving the goal of developing rational legislation that clarifies these issues to move towards resolution requires however a Constitutional base that presently does not exist in USA law. Therefore, this article proposes a U.S. Constitutional Amendment protecting the right to health that would provide a strong foundation for case law regarding medical decisions ostensibly protected by the abortion case law. Invited articleEste artículo explora el último bastión de la esclavitud en los EE. UU., la maternidad, circunscrito por dos casos históricos de la Corte Suprema de los EE. UU. sobre el aborto: Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) y lo que fue anulado, Roe v. Wade (1973). Estos dos casos culminan medio siglo lleno de controversias que comenzaron cuando Roe v. Wade permitió que las pacientes embarazadas decidieran si querían un aborto legal bajo la ley estadounidense. La opinión contraria ao caso Dobbs v. Jackson – que permitió que los estados de EE. UU. prohíban el aborto en el mismo período que Roe v. Wade permitió que las pacientes abortaran, anulando así explícitamente Roe v. Wade – fue enorme cuando circuló en todas las redes sociales internacionales, lo que provocó protestas en las puertas de las casas de los jueces y durante sus descansos. Además de las implicaciones de esta respuesta sin precedentes a los pronunciamientos legales legítimos en una democracia que se enorgullece de proteger la libertad de expresión, los miles de millones de dólares gastados en cabildear las leyes de aborto y la pequeña cantidad de embarazos involucrados anualmente sugieren que estos casos se tratan de temas no expresados que no se abordan. por la Corte Suprema de EE.UU. Este artículo, por lo tanto, explora la noción de que el alboroto público sobre el aborto enmascara una necesidad social de discutir temas importantes. Desde este punto de vista, el escrutinio de los casos que marcan el principio y el final de la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU. en relación con el aborto se presenta como una distracción de los problemas fundamentales no resueltos sobre la salud pública. Lograr el objetivo de desarrollar una legislación racional que aclare estos temas para avanzar hacia la resolución requiere, sin embargo, una base constitucional que actualmente no existe en la ley estadounidense. Este artículo propone una Enmienda Constitucional de los Estados Unidos que protege el derecho a la salud para proporcionar una base sólida para la jurisprudencia sobre las decisiones médicas ostensiblemente protegidas por la jurisprudencia sobre el aborto. Autora invitadaEste artigo explora o último bastião da escravidão nos EUA – a maternidade –, circunscrito por dois casos marcantes da Suprema Corte dos EUA sobre o aborto: Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) e o que foi anulado, Roe v. Wade (1973). Esses dois casos encerram meio século repleto de controvérsias que começaram quando Roe v. Wade permitiu que pacientes grávidas decidissem se queriam um aborto legal sob a lei dos EUA. A opinião contrária ao aborto em Dobbs v. Jackson – permitindo que estados dos EUA proíbam o aborto no mesmo período em que Roe v. Wade permitia que pacientes fizessem um aborto e, assim, anulando explicitamente Roe v. Wade – foi maciçamente divulgada em toda a mídia internacional, iniciando protestos nos portões das casas dos juízes e em seus momentos de lazer. Além das implicações dessa resposta sem precedentes a pronunciamentos jurídicos legítimos em uma democracia que se orgulha de proteger a liberdade de expressão, os bilhões de dólares gastos com o lobby junto às leis de aborto e o pequeno número de gestações envolvidas anualmente sugerem que esses casos são sobre questões não ditas que não abordadas na Corte Suprema americana. Este artigo, portanto, explora a noção de que o alvoroço público sobre o aborto mascara a necessidade social de se discutir temas importantes. Sob esse ponto de vista, o exame minucioso dos casos que marcam o início e o fim da jurisprudência da Suprema Corte dos EUA em relação ao aborto se coloca como uma distração em relação aos problemas fundamentais não resolvidos sobre a saúde pública. Atingir o objetivo de desenvolver uma legislação racional que esclareça essas questões para avançar para a solução requer, no entanto, uma base constitucional que atualmente não existe na lei dos EUA. Este artigo propõe uma Emenda Constitucional nos EUA, que proteja o direito à saúde para fornecer uma base sólida para a jurisprudência sobre decisões médicas ostensivamente protegidas pela jurisprudência sobre o aborto. Autora convidadaFundação Oswaldo Cruz Brasília2023-03-08info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionTextoTextoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/otherapplication/pdfhttps://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/99810.17566/ciads.v12i1.998Iberoamerican Journal of Health Law; Vol. 12 No. 1 (2023): (JAN./MAR. 2023); 105-116Cuadernos Iberoamericanos de Derecho Sanitario; Vol. 12 Núm. 1 (2023): (ENE./MAR. 2023); 105-116Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário; v. 12 n. 1 (2023): (JAN./MAR. 2023); 105-1162358-18242317-839610.17566/ciads.v12i1reponame:Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online)instname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)instacron:FIOCRUZenghttps://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/998/939Copyright (c) 2023 Dr. Ilise Feitshans (Autor)https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessFeitshans, IliseFeitshans, IliseFeitshans, Ilise2023-10-24T15:05:37Zoai:ojs.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br:article/998Revistahttp://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.brPUBhttp://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/oaicadernos.direitosanitario@fiocruz.br2358-18242317-8396opendoar:2023-10-24T15:05:37Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)false |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Freedom From Choice: The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Liberdad de elegir: la decisión de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos en Dobbs v. Jackson Liberdade para escolher: a decisão da Suprema Corte dos EUA no caso Dobbs v. Jackson |
| title |
Freedom From Choice: The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson |
| spellingShingle |
Freedom From Choice: The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Feitshans, Ilise Aborto Legal Derecho a la Salud Decisiones de la Corte Suprema Jurisprudencia Aborto Legal Direito à Saúde Decisões da Suprema Corte Jurisprudência Legal Abortion Right to Health Supreme Court Decisions Jurisprudence |
| title_short |
Freedom From Choice: The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson |
| title_full |
Freedom From Choice: The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson |
| title_fullStr |
Freedom From Choice: The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Freedom From Choice: The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson |
| title_sort |
Freedom From Choice: The U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Dobbs v. Jackson |
| author |
Feitshans, Ilise |
| author_facet |
Feitshans, Ilise |
| author_role |
author |
| dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Feitshans, Ilise Feitshans, Ilise Feitshans, Ilise |
| dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Aborto Legal Derecho a la Salud Decisiones de la Corte Suprema Jurisprudencia Aborto Legal Direito à Saúde Decisões da Suprema Corte Jurisprudência Legal Abortion Right to Health Supreme Court Decisions Jurisprudence |
| topic |
Aborto Legal Derecho a la Salud Decisiones de la Corte Suprema Jurisprudencia Aborto Legal Direito à Saúde Decisões da Suprema Corte Jurisprudência Legal Abortion Right to Health Supreme Court Decisions Jurisprudence |
| description |
This article explores the last bastion of slavery in the USA – motherhood – as circumscribed by two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases about abortion: Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) and the case it overruled, Roe v. Wade (1973). These two cases bookend a half century fraught with controversy that began when Roe v. Wade allowed pregnant patients to decide whether they want a legal abortion under USA law. The contrary opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson allowing individual states of the USA to prohibit abortion in the same time frame in which Roe v. Wade allowed patients to have an abortion (and explicitly overruling Roe v. Wade) exploded when a draft opinion was released across international social media – igniting protests at the gates of judges homes and during off duty activities such as eating in a restaurant. Beyond the implications of this unprecedented response towards legitimate juridical pronouncements in a democracy that prides itself on protecting free speech, the billions of dollars spent lobbying around abortion laws and the small number of pregnancies involved annually suggests that these cases are about unspoken issues that do not surface in the Supreme Court. This article therefore explores the notion that the public uproar about abortion masks the societal need for several important conversations that have not occurred. Under this view, close examination of cases that mark the beginning and end of U.S. Supreme Court case law regarding abortion posits a distraction from unresolved fundamental problems about public health. Achieving the goal of developing rational legislation that clarifies these issues to move towards resolution requires however a Constitutional base that presently does not exist in USA law. Therefore, this article proposes a U.S. Constitutional Amendment protecting the right to health that would provide a strong foundation for case law regarding medical decisions ostensibly protected by the abortion case law. Invited article |
| publishDate |
2023 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-03-08 |
| dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Texto Texto info:eu-repo/semantics/other |
| format |
article |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/998 10.17566/ciads.v12i1.998 |
| url |
https://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/998 |
| identifier_str_mv |
10.17566/ciads.v12i1.998 |
| dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
| language |
eng |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://www.cadernos.prodisa.fiocruz.br/index.php/cadernos/article/view/998/939 |
| dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2023 Dr. Ilise Feitshans (Autor) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2023 Dr. Ilise Feitshans (Autor) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
| dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Brasília |
| publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz Brasília |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Iberoamerican Journal of Health Law; Vol. 12 No. 1 (2023): (JAN./MAR. 2023); 105-116 Cuadernos Iberoamericanos de Derecho Sanitario; Vol. 12 Núm. 1 (2023): (ENE./MAR. 2023); 105-116 Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário; v. 12 n. 1 (2023): (JAN./MAR. 2023); 105-116 2358-1824 2317-8396 10.17566/ciads.v12i1 reponame:Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) instname:Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) instacron:FIOCRUZ |
| instname_str |
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) |
| instacron_str |
FIOCRUZ |
| institution |
FIOCRUZ |
| reponame_str |
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) |
| collection |
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Cadernos Ibero-Americanos de Direito Sanitário (Online) - Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ) |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
cadernos.direitosanitario@fiocruz.br |
| _version_ |
1798942496625000448 |