The Impact of Dobbs

Blake Byle (they/he)

    Following Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973), a study conducted by Gallup Inc. shows that public opinion of the Supreme Court has drastically dropped. In tandem with this drop in public opinion, questions pertaining to the legitimacy of the Court have been put forth into the vanguard. The imperative we face is this: how can an unelected Court- a Court in which five Justices (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barret, Roberts, and Alito) have been appointed by Presidents who lost the popular vote (Donald J. Trump and George H.W. Bush)- overturn almost fifty years of precedent; and, what is the impact of this decision?  

Photo taken from Wikimedia Commons.

  

    Before further delving into the consequences of Dobbs, it is necessary to investigate other instances in which the Court has overturned long-standing precedent. Most noticeably, I am drawn to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1952-1954), which is responsible for overturning Plessy v Furgeson (1896). For context, Plessy is the decision which held racial segregation constitutional so long as equal facilities between races were maintained. After Brown, state sanctioned segregation in public schools was ruled legally unconstitutional. Brown, like Dobbs, overturned half a century of precedent; yet, Brown is seen as a landmark victory for the progressive movement while Dobbs is seen as a major setback. 

    My point here is not to dilute the impact of Dobbs. It is a horrendous decision which denies citizens who are capable of pregnancy their right to life, liberty, and happiness. It is a decision which denies people who are capable of pregnancy their fourteenth amendment right to equal protection and due process under law while eroding the established right to privacy. But what I do intend on pointing out is this: why do we view the Court favorably in one case where they overturned decades of precedent, and disfavorably in another case where they performed a very similar function? 

    Simply, I think you will find that the answer lies within moral judgment. Segregation is morally egregious; and, the prohibition of a citizen’s right to life, liberty, and happiness through the denial of abortion rights is, too, morally egregious. However, if case law is decided on account of a moral compass then it is vulnerable to the subjective moral standards of a small group of people and a specific historical context. Morality is in flux with time; while law, although conceding that it should be updated and revisited throughout time to account for error, should not. Thus, returning to the question I posed in the first paragraph, if we are going to question the legitimacy of the Court we ought to question it on the grounds of case law, precedent, the constitution, and legislation– rather than on a moral standing. Justice bound to morality can never be impartial, which is the supposed foundation of the Court system.

        Now, we turn to Dobbs. Questions about the make-up of the Court are beyond the scope of this essay, and to examine the structural forces which allow for such a Court to form necessitate a more thorough investigation, which is not within the capacity of this essay. Yet, what is possibly obtainable here and now is this: what is the impact of Dobbs? 

    The foremost impact of the Dobbs decision is that the federal government no longer guarantees the right to abortion rights or healthcare access to individuals capable of pregnancy. The judgment on these issues has now been punted to the states where we have seen, at least in Michigan, a massive scramble in law and in campaigning. Both Republicans and Democrats are seizing this opportunity to influence their bases and increase voter turnout for the November elections. Here in Michigan, we have seen the battle take place as it relates to an old 1931 law which criminalizes health care officials and individuals from performing and undertaking abortions- even in cases of rape and incest. 

     Furthermore, cases which rely on Roe– like Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Obergefell v Hodges (2015)– and those which established precedent for Roe– like Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)– are now on the chopping block. For those not aware of these decisions, they are landmark cases which guaranteed the right to for individuals to privately have same-sex intercourse, the right for same-sex couples to be legally recognized as a married entity, and access to contraception, respectively. These are the cases which now dangle by a thread. Further confirming my claim and anxieties, in his concurring opinion to Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas writes that: 

     “[I]n future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” 597 U.S. (2022).

    Ultimately, we are seeing a mass scramble to secure these rights in legislation and law at both the state and federal levels. And though it is not my intention to heighten anxieties and fears, it is common knowledge that the H.R.8404, or the Respect for Marriage Act, has been passed in the House, but not without resistance. If you look at the roll call vote, you will find that there are 267 yeas and 157 nays. Almost one hundred and sixty House Republicans voted against the bill, and now the Senate is delaying a vote on the bill until after the midterms. 

    The right to abortion services, marriage equality, same-sex intercourse, contraception, and many other rights are what is at stake in these November elections. Specifically, though, in Michigan we will be voting for proposition three, a constitutional amendment to guarantee legal and safe access to abortion healthcare throughout the state.  

   In the face of failing government institutions, it is the duty of the people, it is the prerogative of the people, it is the power of the people to check our representatives and vote in better representation within the coming term. If our representatives do not answer our calls for justice, then we will be waiting to boot them out of office. Remember to vote this November 8th, whether it is through early voting, mail in ballots, or on election day. Your future and your community are counting on you to turn-out.