MORE THAN DOBBS V. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION: VOICE CRYING OUT IN THE WILDERNESS
Abstract
The United States Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization corrected Roe v. Wade, a problem existing for almost half a century (forty-nine years) in the usurpation of power in abortion jurisprudence in the United States. Roe had arrogated to the federal court the final say on this ‘police power,’ legalizing abortion effectively through all nine months of pregnancy–representing, among other things, both an abuse of judicial power and a violation of federalism. Dobbs returned the question to the states. Anger has arisen as a result of overturning Roe, of a kind similarly seen by the pro-life camp at the time of Roe’s enactment. For years on end, Roe has shown itself to be an unresolved question and the root of growing hostility. Despite the concessions of many in Roe’s favor that abortion is an issue ‘rightfully belonging to the states, according to the division of power between state and federal government,’ the public insists Dobbs was purposed in a ‘step back for women’s rights,’ and in doing so expose themselves as ignorant, evil, or both. While the question of federalism and state’s rights continues to amass attention in legal circles debating these things, an important element has been ignored, namely morality. Inasmuch as one can appreciate the discussions concerning constitutional law, they cannot be separated from the implications of permitting even states the exercise of judgment on the permissibility of abortions and its cut-off time.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 FAU Undergraduate Law Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.