Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health: Undermining Public Health, Facilitating Reproductive Coercion

Aziza Ahmed, Dabney P. Evans, Jason Jackson, Benjamin Mason Meier, Cecília Tomori

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health continues a trajectory of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence that undermines the normative foundation of public health - the idea that the state is obligated to provide a robust set of supports for healthcare services and the underlying social determinants of health. Dobbs furthers a longstanding ideology of individual responsibility in public health, neglecting collective responsibility for better health outcomes. Such an ideology on individual responsibility not only enables a shrinking of public health infrastructure for reproductive health, it facilitates the rise of reproductive coercion and a criminal legal response to pregnancy and abortion. This commentary situates Dobbs in the context of a long historical shift in public health that increasingly places burdens on individuals for their own reproductive health care, moving away from the possibility of a robust state public health infrastructure.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)485-489
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Law, Medicine and Ethics
Volume51
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 13 2023

Keywords

  • Abortion
  • Covid
  • Dobbs
  • Public Health
  • Reproductive Rights

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health: Undermining Public Health, Facilitating Reproductive Coercion'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this