Download PDF<\/a>]<\/p>\n\n\n\nFew U.S. Supreme Court decisions in American history have sparked as much debate and protest as the reversal of Roe v. Wade <\/em>in 2022. The 1973 Roe v Wade<\/em> decision had established a national right to abortion under the due process clause of the Constitution\u2019s Fourteenth Amendment that protected the right to privacy. The Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade <\/em>ruling on June 24, 2022, with their decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/em>. The Dobbs <\/em>decision ended nearly 50 years of constitutionally protected abortion rights at certain stages of pregnancy. The Dobbs<\/em> decision determined that the Constitution does not explicitly or implicitly state that abortion should be legal or guaranteed, and that the right to abortion is therefore not guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment after all. This ruling effectively returned authority to regulate abortion laws and reproductive rights to U.S. states.<\/p>\n\n\n\nIn the years immediately following this decision, citizens across the United States have held mixed opinions. A 2022 Gallup poll found that 55% of Americans identify as \u201cpro-choice,\u201d the highest percentage since 1995, and only 39% identify as \u201cpro-life\u201d (Saad, 2022). Some Americans strongly agree or disagree with the Dobbs <\/em>decision, while the greatest percentages of Americans hold views on abortion that fall within a political middle ground \u2013 often believing abortion should be legal in some circumstances, but not all (Deckman et al., 2023). The Dobbs <\/em>decision has made abortion rights a more prominent feature of American political debates and has influenced public opinion on this matter. This essay argues that the Dobbs <\/em>decision is an important moment in U.S. legal history that requires us to think deeply about how the public perceives human rights issues and how this debate impacts American democratic ideals.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Dobbs<\/em> decision marked a pivotal moment in United States history because it fundamentally reshaped the legal status of abortion, which has affected women across the country. The Supreme Court asserted that the Dobbs <\/em>decision was \u201cguided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of the nation\u2019s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds that the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion\u201d (Justia, 2022). Rather than protecting abortion rights in relation to the right to privacy and the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court determined that abortion did not warrant protection by the due process clause. Notably, three quarters of the states made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted (National Constitution Center, 2022). By eliminating federal abortion protections and returning authority to the states, this new shift allowed each state to enact its own laws based on local political and cultural views. Within six months of the Dobbs <\/em>decision, 19 states passed laws prohibiting abortion within the first trimester (Maril, 2023). For many pro-choice advocates, the Dobbs <\/em>decision was not just a legal shift; it symbolizes a broader threat to bodily autonomy and democratic representation. From that perspective, millions who supported abortion access were overridden by a judicial majority that interpreted the Constitution differently than when Roe v. Wade<\/em> was decided.<\/p>\n\n\n\nDebates about the Dobbs <\/em>decision highlight deep divisions in how Americans think about abortion, religion, race, and politics. At the most broad and basic level, individuals who tend to be more conservative and religious (and who often align with the Republican political party) tend to agree with the Dobbs <\/em>decision, while those who are less religious and more progress (and who often vote Democrat) tend to disagree with it. Yet beliefs about abortion can be far more complicated than that. Some studies find that there is a correlation between beliefs about race and opinions about abortion access (Deckman et al., 2023). Support for abortion is influenced by personal factors such as financial instability, lack of parental readiness, and the absence of social or family support (Jozkowski et al., 2024). Support for abortion rights is sometimes linked to concern about children\u2019s rights and well-being; children born into families where they are unwanted or underprivileged might struggle to have their basic needs met, including emotional support, while the children of underaged parents could face similar challenges and vulnerabilities to neglect (Jozkowski et al., 2024). These real-life and complex concerns demonstrate how the topic of abortion isn\u2019t simply an issue during pregnancy and at childbirth, but rather it impacts an individual\u2019s entire lifespan. The Dobbs<\/em> decision is therefore viewed by many pro-choice advocates as failing to account for the broader consequences that come from limiting reproductive options.<\/p>\n\n\n\nExamining the Dobbs<\/em> decision through a democratic lens is crucial for understanding the public attitudes about women\u2019s bodily autonomy and abortion rights. Many citizens view the overturning of Roe v. Wade<\/em> as a threat to democracy because it infringes upon individual liberties, such as the right to privacy for women. Some contend that Dobbs <\/em>reinstalls government control over private individuals, including the decision of whether to become a parent (Huberfeld et al., 2023). Because these restrictions most severely impact poor women (who cannot travel to another state or country to have an abortion), some argue that the Dobbs <\/em>decision results in another way that health care access is determined by socioeconomic status (Deckman et al., 2023). There is a growing concern that relying on states to legislate abortion access, rather than having federal guarantees, leads to unequal protections for U.S. citizens based on their state of residency. Indeed, the Dobbs <\/em>decision has raised questions about challenges to American democracy more generally, since the right to bodily autonomy is central to fundamental human rights and freedoms, and how such challenges will impact gender equality (Maril, 2023). As women across the United States share stories about how Dobbs <\/em>has personally affected them, some argue that the decision is a direct attack against women\u2019s rights that is fueled by sexist, masculinist preferences (Alvar\u00e9, 2023). Many question how this ruling will impact women\u2019s healthcare, including access to birth control and in vitro fertilization (IVF), and point to the emotional toll this takes on women whose health care is threatened (Cherry, 2024).<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe topic of abortion has always been a controversial issue in the United States, even during the Roe v. Wade<\/em> era, and it continues to shape political conversations. The Dobbs<\/em> decision impacted reproductive rights by shifting the power to legislate abortion to the states, leading to restrictions that many believe privilege controlling women\u2019s bodies over protecting rights to privacy and healthcare. \u00a0Contrasting public opinions remind us that abortion will remain a hot topic within U.S. society with human rights implications.<\/p>\n\n\n\nReferences<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nAlvar\u00e9, H.M. (2023). Denying Dobbs, Dodging the Demos. Houston Law Review, 60<\/em>(4): 865-900.<\/p>\n\n\n\nCherry, A.L. (2024). \u201cI Wish I Knew How It Would Feel to Be Free\u201d: A Lamentation on Dobbs v. Jackson<\/em>\u2019s Pernicious Impact on the Lives and Liberty of Women. Cleveland State Law Review, 72<\/em>(2): 301-393.<\/p>\n\n\n\nDeckman, M., Elder, L., Green, S., & Lizotte, M. K. (2023). Abortion, Religion, and Racial Resentment: Unpacking the Underpinnings of Contemporary Abortion Attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 104<\/em>(2): 140-152.<\/p>\n\n\n\nHuberfeld, N., McClain, L.C., Ahmed, A., & Lomboardo, P.A. (2023). \u201cA Vigorous Campaign Against Abortion\u201d: Views of American Leaders of Eugenics v. Supreme Court Distortions. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 51<\/em>(3): 473-479.<\/p>\n\n\n\nJozkowski, K.N., Bueno, X. LaRoche, K., Crawford, B.L., Turner, R.C., & Lo, W. (2024). Participant-driven salient beliefs regarding abortion: Implications for abortion attitude measurement. Social Science Quarterly, 105<\/em>(2): 374-391.<\/p>\n\n\n\nJustia. (2022, August 9). Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization: 597 U.S._(2022)<\/em>. Retrieved from https:\/\/perma.cc\/3MC3-PD8F.<\/p>\n\n\n\nMaril, R. (2023). When It Happens Here: Reproductive Autonomy, Fascism, and Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization. Pace Law Review, 43<\/em>(2): 399-432.<\/p>\n\n\n\nNational Constitution Center. (2022). Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization <\/em>(2022). Retrieved from https:\/\/constitutioncenter.org\/the-constitution\/supreme-court-case-library\/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\nSaad, L. (2022, June 2). \u201cPro-Choice\u201d Identification Rises to Near Record High in U.S. Gallup. Retrieved from https:\/\/news.gallup.com\/poll\/393104\/pro-choice-identification-rises-near-record-high.aspx.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u00a9 Copyright 2025 Righting Wrongs: A Journal of Human Rights<\/em>. All rights reserved. <\/p>\n\n\n\nRighting Wrongs: A Journal of Human Rights<\/em> is an academic journal that provides space for undergraduate students to explore human rights issues, challenge current actions and frameworks, and engage in problem-solving aimed at tackling some of the world\u2019s most pressing issues. This open-access journal is available online at www.webster.edu\/rightingwrongs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Tristyn Tofano, Emory and Henry University \u2013 Emory, Virginia<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":129,"featured_media":1512,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[67],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1514","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-volume-xv-issue-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.webster.edu\/humanrights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1514","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.webster.edu\/humanrights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.webster.edu\/humanrights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.webster.edu\/humanrights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/129"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.webster.edu\/humanrights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1514"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.webster.edu\/humanrights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1514\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.webster.edu\/humanrights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1512"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.webster.edu\/humanrights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1514"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.webster.edu\/humanrights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1514"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.webster.edu\/humanrights\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1514"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}