Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization [SCOTUSbrief]

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, stating that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and overturning its precedents in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.
Why did the Court reach the decision it did? Prof. Julia Mahoney of the University of Virginia School of Law discusses stare decisis, substantive due process, and the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
Learn more about Julia Mahoney:
www.law.virginia.edu/faculty/...
*******
Related Links & Differing Views:
Congressional Research Service: “Supreme Court Rules No Constitutional Right to Abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization”
crsreports.congress.gov/produ...
SCOTUSblog: “Cherry-picked history: Reva Siegel on ‘living originalism’ in Dobbs”
www.scotusblog.com/2022/08/ch...
The Public Discourse: “Does Dobbs v. Jackson Threaten The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy?”
www.thepublicdiscourse.com/20...
Reason: “Dobbs, Abortion, and Stare Decisis”
reason.com/volokh/2022/06/25/...
The Federalist Society: “A Discussion on Dobbs”
• A Discussion on Dobbs

[@michaelmarkunas]

The music is obnoxiously competing with the speaker making this unlistenable.

[@Freakcent]

That's about exactly what I wanted to write. I really hate this '"Let's add some ((way) too loud) background music to it, so people won't get bored by the information that is presented." trend.

[@Vege-Table]

I am presenting a small essay about this topic to my class in a couple of weeks and every time I do research I realize just how much is involved in these legal cases. I just wanted to find out why Roe v. Wade was overturned and am now researching an entirely different case. Very informative video. Thanks for giving me a good overview of the topic before I spend 2+ hours researching it.

[@quanphu8399]

Same here, This topic is so difficult in so many ways, and it also takes me a lot of time to work on this topic. But overall it does give me the benefit to understand this more clearly. I guess it is worth it.

[@emiiariilol]

Me spending 4 hours researching 😭

[@Vege-Table]

@@emiiariilol lmao yea real I was naive to think 2 hours would be enough time

[@HugoScavinoUSA]

I appreciate your historical and objective explanation of the case law

[@sparkytime634]

Incredible video! This is a huge help for me, thank you!

[@TMuteba]

Informative.

[@NithinJune]

I hat to brief this case instead of Roe v. Wade for AP American Government 😭

[@funwithfacts9413]

Nice to brief a good case, rather than a bad one.

[@dragonflarefrog1424]

@@funwithfacts9413 Except he briefed an awful case driven by opinion

[@Ian-tq2dq]

@@dragonflarefrog1424 wtf do you think law is?

[@nathanwhitfield8517]

Hahaha. Glad for your headache.

[@Americababy]

Must have been easy.

[@CJFerguson]

I never thought of the notion that Kavanaugh brought forward that this is not whether the constitution is pro-life or pro-choice. The court simply did what they were outlined to do within the constitution: find sources within the constitution that supports abortion rights. There was unfortunately no concrete support for abortion which in turn allowed for the overturning of Roe V. Wade and Planned Parenthood v.Casey. I do firmly believe that abortion rights should be laws passed by the federal government rather than state or local as it may lead to a conflict of interest due to the religious nature behind abortion rights as seen in the laws that were brought to the Supreme Court every single time.

[@gopher7691]

The federal government has no authority to regulate abortion. It is solely a state prerogative

[@gopher7691]

States should make abortion illegal because it is almost always murder. The sciences of genetics and embryology tell us that a human being’s life begins at conception. To intentionally kill an unborn human being for convenience is therefore murder. This is not a religious view, it is an ethical view informed by science. Many non-religious, agnostic, and atheist people hold it as well as religious people. But the state has sole authority so states can make it legal to kill unborn human beings for convenience if it wants to without any interference from the federal government

[@dearantsally9915]

I disagree. Abortion should NOT be legal. Period. This issue is not only a matter of constitutionality but also of morality. When the framers drafted the Constitution their intent was that this form of FREE government would only work if its citizens had a notion of morality. The gruesome act of dismembering a baby (Facts) disturbs the peace and tranquility of an individual (Amend 15).

[@Americababy]

The court also found that your mom aborted you but you made it. Sad day when it happened. ​@@dearantsally9915

[@matthewflorence8026]

I am ignorant about many things, stupid about others but I believe myself intelligent so I need to watch this again... But what I believe shouldn't matter to women's bodies.

[@Joshokitty]

Incredibly well made video.

[@jackfoy3938]

Read the entire dobbs case on paper, roe never had a leg to stand on, the court could not have been more wrong in roe. The 14th amendment protects two classes of rights, those applied in the first 8 amendments, and then those that are not explicitly listed, but still have implied. Obviously, abortion does not stand in the first eight, and in order to stand in the second class, it must be deeply rooted in the nations, history, and tradition, which is not, as it was basically entirely outlawed for the history of this country until Roe v. Wade. The court literally and,it’s the decision in roe was and the reasoning was horrible.

[@pwrmx24]

Background music is a real distraction.

[@hwhack]

What is the The Federalist Society's view on the 9th amendment? Or did you get that far?

[@robbiecee2]

This is the best summary of the arguments I've seen yet. The dissent could have been an opinion piece in the NYT! It contained no actual legal analysis or reasoning and can be summarised as "we like abortion therefore it is a constitutional right"

[@spencerconway5468]

Exactly. You see people having very strong opinions on political issues (not just abortion) yet they have no clue what they’re talking about. This case was a prime example. It’s called the Dunning Kruger effect. Instead of actually understanding why Roe V Wade was a bad case (even feminist Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg thought it was the wrong case to legalize abortion) and why it was overturned 49 years later, the left resorts to “abortion is a constitutional right because I like it” and “we live in a patriarchy just like The Handmaids Tale”. They know nothing about the constitution and only say something is a constitutional right when they like what they are deeming a right. At the same time they will say with a straight face that “assault rifles” (in which they almost always fail to provide a solid definition that makes sense) need to be banned and that the second amendment doesn’t cover them because “they only had muskets and not big scary machine guns in 1776” (of course they forget the fact that the constitution wasn’t the legal document of the US until 1789, and that the 2nd amendment wasn’t ratified until 1791.

[@RockSmithStudio]

Yep. Despite what you hear from some news media, this court ruling did not ban abortion but rather reverse the claim that abortion is a constitutional right, returning the issue to the state and Congress. If a bill was passed by Congress and signed by the President, it would be law but that never happened despite pro-choice advocates having that opportunity throughout the last 5 decades

[@gopher7691]

@@RockSmithStudiocongress doesn’t have the constitutional authority to regulate abortion since there is nothing in the constitution giving it to congress. It is solely a state prerogative

[@OrpheusObjectMRH]

Oh, like interracial marriage? Ask "Uncle" Clarence Thomas about that.

[@gopher7691]

@@OrpheusObjectMRH loving v Virginia was correctly decided on an equal protection basis, not a substantive due process basis. Why do you race baiting pro choicers constantly remind us that Clarence Thomas’s wife is white? That’s what a segregationist would do in the 1920s. Alito wrote the Dobbs opinion. What race is his wife?q

[@aldrincariquitan133]

thanks

[@LostParadise_]

Such an unfortunate decision. While the constitution makes no explicit mention of abortion, Griswold v. Conecticut had concluded that there are "prenumbras" in the Constitution; those being "between the lines," unwritten rights. To limit abortion access is purely a limitation of women's freedoms no matter how you cut it.

[@nobodynoone2500]

Anyone pretending this is a political issue, is right, but not in the way they think. The issue is your politicians only have to pass a law granting access, but they have not. It is the fault of the LEFT not acting, (even with foreknowledge of the ruling) that you have lost your access to abortion. I will not weigh in on the ethical aspect, that is yours to work through on your own terms. But blaming the RIGHT (or any other political or ethical position) is myopic and ignorant. Hold your representatives accountable for their actions and inaction alike. No matter your politics, being truthful about the issues, not mindlessly promoting your values or preconceptions, is the only sustainable way to enact lasting change.

[@migbgold3191]

my sense is that it may only be a political issue at the state level -- for the state legislative representatives to address through each state's penal code (i.e. as an exception to murder or manslaughter under certain circumstances). To the extent that the US Constitution does not provide for a federal right to have an abortion, I do not believe that there is an unequivocal basis for the federal legislature to advance a bill that could somehow create a federal right to an abortion and that could be codified under the US Code. If the federal congress is not empowered by the US Constitution to enact such a law, then it may just be a state issue (absent an amendment to the US Constitution addressing abortion).

[@Jmike3543]

The left never had a filibuster proof majority to do so.

[@The_Tiffster]

....because pushing one's values and preconceptions on others is bad...right? But nobody on the pro-choice side has ever attempted to force a pro-lifer into an unwanted abortion. It's a personal decision that should be made between the individual and her doctor. Serious medical decisions should not be decided by politicians and lawyers....and the kicker is that they are not even arguing from a place of sincerity and moral conviction....they are motivated by lobbyists and donors to obliterate the rights of the people.

[@gopher7691]

There is no constitutional basis for federal regulation of abortion. It is solely a state prerogative

[@OrpheusObjectMRH]

Well, who is responsible? Extraterrestrials? This is the result of protracted activism BY THE RIGHT, to roll back a RIGHT and argue ironically against the very legal concept these cretins in the Federalist Society like to yammer about: Stare Decisis - please. These hypocrites don't care about case law, they care about imposing their political and ill-conceived religious beliefs on everyone. Furthermore, if these idiots think they're going to end abortion, then not only are they duplicitous hypocrites, but clinically delusional.

[@WatchfulHunter]

Human linguistics and the human choice to justify harm by cherrypicking words results in educated authorities choosing words that justify harmful and deadly acts like abuse, torture and murder. Abort means to end a flight or launch. Not to kill a person. But this word was chosen to replace murder. To justify murder and convince the public it is not evil and heinous. Other words used to replace murder are justice, casualty, execution, collateral damage. Intentionally choosing and planning to end a human life is murder. When we want to murder without guilt, we change the word, not the act. We know what we did. It cannot be undone.

[@danielstokes8560]

Do you choose to murder unborn children or strip away women’s choice to govern their own bodies. A difficult question to be sure.

[@robinhood20253]

Any person who lacks control over his/ her reptoduction is a slave. I am a US citizen and a fetus is not. Your twisting of words does not change the fact that forced birth policy violates thehuman rights of those pregnant person, as well as has the potential to prevent her from life , liberty and / or pursuit of bappiness.

[@robinhood20253]

@@danielstokes8560 that isnt the question. Abortion is termination of a pregnancy. Until viability the fetus will simply die , murder is not necessary..

[@robinhood20253]

When you wish to opress minorities and women and prevent or restrict their possibility to overcome generational poverty and discrimiation by the violation of their basic human right in a nation with extremely high maternal death rates you have defined evil and chose evil. No amount of word play will make what this court has done right or justified

[@danielstokes8560]

@@robinhood20253 True, I just looked up the definition to murder, and the way I used it does not fit the nature of the problem.

[@georgiakritikos4955]

Mothers & FATHERS who are allowed to kill their own children ❤❤❤dont treat anyone else any different ❤❤❤its why roe vs wade was overturned in the United States ❤a Reflection of what is happening ❤

[@jamalconnelly5351]

Using this logic all the rights that Black people, women and LGBTQ+ people have can be taken over night. A change in Supreme Court members shouldn't mean less right for everyone. Most people don't know that they're pregnant at 6 weeks and these states have been tearing away at abortion access for decades. Abortion should be decision between someone and their health care provider, not religious zealots.

[@user-ll4cu5dh3b]

Abortion was never a right and Roe V Wade was poorly argued for. If there are other cases that had given (legitimate) rights to Black people, women and LGBTQ+ people, yet it was poorly argued for like Roe V Wade, you should hope that it gets overturned and rewritten so that the legal precedent for those rights become undisputable.

[@febreasy6404]

Too much jargon here for the average American to understand

[@loveyourself9893]

The federalist society

[@NithinJune]

what i genuinely appreciate their honest summary despite wholeheartedly disagreeing with the majority opinion on this case

[@goddess_of_Kratos]

Just inform and allow the fetus parents of what planned Parenthood has been doing, dismantling and selling body parts. I'm sure things will change and fed gov no longer incentivizing trafficking babyparts

[@NithinJune]

what

[@nicolehernandezg.6354]

please cite this or link the article you got this from

[@serraramayfield9230]

source: I made it the fuck up

[@goddess_of_Kratos]

@@nicolehernandezg.6354 Folsom CA fetus express or something like that, Google it. Planned Parenthood too veritas. Used fed ex.

[@somebodyoncetoldme186]

Two bodies two voices

[@robinhood20253]

The stench of the court can be detected across the planet.

[@emmittmatthews8636]

I'm proud that we have a Supreme Court that works to uphold the constitution, as they should be doing. The issue still isn't resolved and there's never going to be a perfect solution, but at least we're working towards a better one now. Roe v Wade was a very poor decision.

[@joshuahawkins9847]

Okay Justice Sotomayor

[@robinhood20253]

@@joshuahawkins9847 I love her.

[@gopher7691]

I’d say the 63 million corpses from legal abortion is more offensive than the Dobbs decision

[@OmarOsman98]

@@robinhood20253 She doesn’t deserve to be on the bench