A Brief on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization 

12-01-2021

Future Medical Professionals for Life fully endorses the Gestational Age Act [MS Code § 41-41- 191 (2018)] written by Mississippi Delegate Becky Currie and signed by former Governor Phil Bryant. This bill rightly challenges the inconsistent line of fetal viability tied to the undue- burden test that was drawn under Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey as an assessment of when states can limit elective abortions, as fetal viability is directly tied to advances in medical technology.

The right to abortion has never been a right granted under the United States Constitution. In fact, the Constitution states it is the duty of the government to uphold life and welfare – neither of which supports the right to the direct killing of the fully human, biologically complete preborn, by which over 63 million children have been victims of abortion. The rulings of sister cases Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton as well as Planned Parenthood v. Casey were rather founded in the purported “right to privacy” under the 14th Amendment, which more than one ruling justice has granted to be a flawed argument to uphold the “right to abortion.”

The Gestational Age Act also challenges the role of the federal government in granting legality to or prohibiting abortion. The Supreme Court of the United States consists of nine justices, not democratically selected and, therefore, unable to be democratically removed from office. As Justice Kavanaugh stated succinctly, “The Constitution is neither pro-life nor pro-choice on the question of abortion but leaves the issue to the people of the states or perhaps Congress to resolve in the democratic process.” The decision of abortion must be relinquished to the states.

During the oral arguments of Dobbs v. Jackson, the legal proponents for abortion founded their arguments in two main points. Stare decisis, or judicial precedent, states that future judicial rulings should be based on past judicial decisions as the Constitution does not change and, therefore, the rulings should not either. Thus, all past rulings should stand unless an egregious error was made – such we believe occurred in the cases of Roe and Doe and again in Casey. Stare decisis does allow for past cased to be overruled in specific scenarios. Proponents for abortion use this judicial principle to state that abortion should be allowed because it has been allowed the previous almost 50 years.

Furthermore, counsel for the Jackson Women’s Health Organization argued for the principle of reliance – that it would be unjust to take the “right to abortion” from women who have become so heavily reliant on the procedure. By making this argument, the counsel shows ignorance in understanding what would occur if Roe v. Wade was overturned – the decision would be handed down to the states. This would not abolish abortion in all fifty states, but it would remain rather accessible in approximately half the states, while the remaining states would outlaw abortion under previous trigger laws and via other means.

Abortion proponents’ arguments using stare decisis and the reliance principle are both poor legal arguments in the case of civil rights infringements such as abortion. In the watershed case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka using these legal arguments would have upheld the injustice of segregation and violated the principles under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Rather, the rights of the preborn should be upheld under this same clause as supported by science and logic.

Roe v. Wade as well as Planned Parenthood v. Casey are scientifically outdated and were never judicially valid. It is time that the Court correct the violations of rights of both the state and the individual and allow life to be democratically and justly upheld.