City Research Online

Abstract

This paper evaluates the majority judgment in the United States Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation. It is suggested that much of what is said in the majority opinion ostensibly appears eminently defensible if viewed solely from a narrowly legalistic perspective. But closer analysis suggests that the majority’s reasoning has some weaknesses when viewed within that limited paradigm. A further line of inquiry assesses whether adopting such a ‘legalistic’ approach to the question of abortion rights is in any event an appropriate position for the Court to adopt. The final section of the paper explores two additional contextual issues: the first relates to the personal ethical integrity of some of the majority judges; the second to the adequacy of State political processes as a means to address the abortion rights controversy.

Publication Type:	Article
Additional Information:	© 2023 Ian Loveland, published by Sciendo. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
Publisher Keywords:	Abortion, Dobbs v. Jackson, Roe v. Wade, Stare Decisis, Judicial Lawmaking
Subjects:	K Law R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine > RA0421 Public health. Hygiene. Preventive Medicine
Departments:	The City Law School > Academic Programmes
SWORD Depositor:	Symplectic Administrator

Export

Downloads