Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T21:27:15.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anti-Abortion Exceptionalism after Dobbs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2023

Elizabeth Sepper
Elizabeth Sepper*
Affiliation:
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS, AUSTIN, TX, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The end of the constitutional right to abortion with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health stands to generate massive conflict between abortion regulation and the First Amendment. Abortion exceptionalism within constitutional doctrine -- which both treats abortion differently than other areas and favors anti-abortion over pro-choice viewpoints -- will not retreat but advance, unless confronted by the courts.

Keywords

AbortionReligionSpeechConstitutionDobbs
Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 51 , Issue 3: Seeking Reproductive Justice in the Next 50 Years , Fall 2023 , pp. 612 - 617
Copyright
© 2023 The Author(s)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

For foundational pieces, see Borgmann, C.E., “Abortion Exceptionalism and Undue Burden Preemption,” Washington & Lee Law Review 71, no. 2 (2014): 1047–1087, and C.M. Corbin, “Abortion Distortions,” Washington & Lee Law Review 71, no. 2 (2014): 1175-1210. For a critique from the right, see June Med. Servs. L.L.C. v. Russo, 140 S.Ct. 2103, 2142 (2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
Although widely acknowledged, the phenomenon was rarely named in scholarship. Vandewalker, I., “Abortion and Informed Consent: How Biased Counseling Laws Mandate Violations of Medical Ethics,” Michigan Journal of Gender & Law 19, no. 1 (2012): 6–70, at n.18 (“Although I am sure I did not invent this term [abortion exceptionalism], I am not aware of any prior use of it in the legal literature.”). For First Amendment abortion exceptionalism, see C.E. Wells, “Abortion Counseling as Vice Activity: The Free Speech Implications of Rust v. Sullivan and Planned Parenthood v. Casey,” Columbia Law Review 95, no. 7 (1995): 1724-1764; Madsen v. Women’s Health Ctr., 512 U.S. 753, 785 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
E.g., Berg, P.E., “Lost in a Doctrinal Wasteland: The Exceptionalism of Doctor-Patient Speech Within the Rehnquist Court’s First Amendment Jurisprudence,” Health Matrix 8, no. 2 (1998): 153–177.Google Scholar
I use the term “anti-abortion” as moderating between the arguably misleading “pro-life” and the arguably inflammatory “forced-birth.”.Google Scholar
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S.Ct. 2228 (2022).Google Scholar
Dobbs, 142 S.Ct. at 2305 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).Google Scholar
505 U.S. 833, 882 (1992).Google Scholar
Vandewalker, supra note 2, at 6-8.Google Scholar
Thornburgh v. Am. Coll. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747, 762–63 (1986), overruled by Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).Google Scholar
505 U.S. at 884.Google Scholar
Suter, S.M., “The First Amendment and Physician Speech in Reproductive Decision Making,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 43, no. 1 (2015): 22–34; D. Halberstam, “Commercial Speech, Professional Speech, and the Constitutional Status of Social Institutions,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 147, no. 4 (1999): 771-874; R. Post, “Informed Consent to Abortion: A First Amendment Analysis of Compelled Physician Speech,” University of Illinois Law Review 2007, no. 3 (2007): 939-990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keighley, J.M., “Physician Speech and Mandatory Ultrasound Laws: The First Amendment’s Limit on Compelled Ideological Speech,” Cardozo Law Review 34, no. 6 (2013): 2347–2405.Google Scholar
Tex. Med. Providers Performing Abortion Servs. v. Lakey, 667 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2012); EMW Women’s Surgical Ctr. v. Beshear, 920 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2019); see Borgmann, supra note 1, at 1076-77 (analyzing this approach). Only the Fourth Circuit parted ways. Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2014).Google Scholar
Corbin, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Planned Parenthood Minn. v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008).Google Scholar
See P. Noor, “What a Pregnancy Actually Looks Like Before 10 Weeks,” Guardian, October 20, 2022, available at <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue> (last visited August 31, 2023).+(last+visited+August+31,+2023).>Google Scholar
E.g., 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis, 143 S.Ct. 2298 (2023).Google Scholar
E.g., Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 131 S.Ct. 2653, 2664–65 (2011).Google Scholar
Garden, C., “Speech Inequality After Janus v. Afscme,” Indiana Law Journal 95, no. 1 (2020): 269–298.Google Scholar
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S.Ct. 2228 (2022) (citing 530 U.S. 703, 741–742 (2000) (Scalia, J., dissenting)).Google Scholar
McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014).Google Scholar
138 S.Ct. at 2369–70.Google Scholar
E.g., Zauderer v. Off. Of Disciplinary Couns. Of Supreme Ct. of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985).Google Scholar
138 S.Ct. at 2371.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
138 S.Ct. at 2388 (Breyer, J. dissenting).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Corbin, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, 573 U.S. 682 (2014).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
E.g., Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 70.41.520 (West 2020).Google Scholar
Bazelon, E., “Risking Everything to Offer Abortions Across State Lines,” New York Times Magazine, October 4, 2022, available at <https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/04/magazine/abortion-interstate-travel-post-roe.html> (last visited August 31, 2023).+(last+visited+August+31,+2023).>Google Scholar
Pilkington, E., “Artwork Referring to Abortion Removed from Idaho Public College Exhibition,” Guardian, March 7, 2023, available at <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/07/idaho-college-abortion-artwork-banned> (last visited August 31, 2023).+(last+visited+August+31,+2023).>Google Scholar
Hercher, L. and Suter, S., “Reproductive Genetic Medicine in a Post-Dobbs World: Will it Make Life Harder for People with Genetic Disease?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics (forthcoming 2024).Google Scholar
NLRC Post-Roe Model Abortion Law Memo 13, available at <https://www.nrlc.org/wp-content/uploads/NRLC-Post-Roe-Model-Abortion-Law-FINAL-1.pdf> (last visited August 31, 2023).+(last+visited+August+31,+2023).>Google Scholar
Texas House Bill 2690 (2023 Regular Session).Google Scholar
E.g., Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prod. Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983).Google Scholar
E.g., Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105, 108 (1973).Google Scholar
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969); see also Volokh, E., “S.C. Bill Would Apparently Outlaw News Sites’ Writing About Legal Abortion Clinics in Neighboring States,” Reason, June 30, 2022, available at <https://reason.com/volokh/2022/06/30/s-c-bill-would-apparently-outlaw-news-sites-writing-about-legal-abortion-clinics-in-neighboring-states/> (last visited August 31, 2023).+(last+visited+August+31,+2023).>Google Scholar
E.g., Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 632 (9th Cir. 2002).Google Scholar
National Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Ala. ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).Google Scholar
Americans for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 141 S.Ct. 2373 (2021).Google Scholar
Appleton, S.F., “Out of Bounds?: Abortion, Choice of Law, and a Modest Role for Congress,” Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 35, no. 2 (2023): 461–504.Google Scholar
Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809, 811 (1975).Google Scholar
Hill, B.J., “The First Amendment and the Politics of Reproductive Health Care,” Washington University Journal of Law & Policy 50, no. 1 (2016): 103–122.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b) (1993).Google Scholar
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 139 S.Ct. 49 (2021).Google Scholar
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Rights Commission, 138 S.Ct. 1719 (2018) (expanding animus to encompass virtually any remarks about religion); Fulton, 139 S.Ct. at 1879 (finding discrimination through individualized exceptions where there wasn’t such a practice).Google Scholar
Tandon v. Newsom, 141 S.Ct. 1294 (2021).Google Scholar
Law, Rights, and Religion Project, A Religious Right to Abortion: History & Analysis, August 2022, available at <https://lawrightsreligion.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/LRRP%20Religious%20Liberty%20%26%20Abortion%20Rights%20memo.pdf> (last visited August 31, 2023).+(last+visited+August+31,+2023).>Google Scholar
Id. at 8-10 (Kentucky, Utah, and Wyoming).Google Scholar
Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1, No. 49D01-2209-PL-031056 (Marion County Superior Court December 2, 2022).Google Scholar
Sepper, E., “Taking Conscience Seriously,” Virginia Law Review 98, no. 7 (2012): 1501–75.Google Scholar
Texas v. Becerra, No. 5:22-CV-185-H, 2022 WL 3639525 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2022).Google Scholar
Doe v. Rokita, 2022 WL 17249016, *2 (7th Cir. 2022).Google Scholar
EMW Women’s Surgical Ctr. v. Beshear, 920 F.3d 421, 429 (6th Cir. 2019).Google Scholar
Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238, 245 (4th Cir. 2014).Google Scholar
Id. at 249.Google Scholar
Sepper, E., “Free Exercise of Abortion,” B.Y.U. Law Review 48 (forthcoming 2023).Google Scholar
Doe v. Parson, 960 F.3d 1115, 1119 (8th Cir. 2020).Google Scholar
Schragger, R. and Schwartzman, M., “Religious Freedom and Abortion,” Iowa Law Review 108, no. 5 (2023): 2299–2340.Google Scholar