| Description |
The holding of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned a constitutional right to abortion held in Roe v. Wade as legal precedent for nearly 50 years. In stripping the federal right to abortion, the United States Supreme Court gave authority to the states to decide abortion legislation. Consequently, some states, like Colorado and Utah, border states that hold vastly different abortion regulations causing confusion and chaos for those seeking abortion care - whether for elective purposes or medically necessary abortions. This monumental change in jurisprudence throughout the US was decided based on several comparison arguments, analyzed in this thesis. The first, made by Justice Samuel Alito states that abortion is not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."1 The second, an argument originally made in the Petitioner's Brief in Dobbs, but echoed by Chief Justice Roberts in his concurring opinion, states, "The United States finds itself in the company of China and North Korea as some of the only countries that permit elective abortions after 20 weeks' gestation."2 Third, this thesis highlights the dissenting opinion, and the alternate decision suggested by Chief Justice Roberts arguing for a modified federal right to abortion. Fourth, this thesis analyzes abortion access in three different states having differing abortion frameworks by comparing these states to those of foreign countries. This thesis concludes that Dobbs should not have been based on faulty arguments. |
