Dobbs v. Jackson

Dobbs v. Jackson is a court case that questioned the constitutionality of abortion regulations in the US. The Supreme Court ruled to take away the constitutional right to abortion, which could lead to more states banning abortion. This case has significant implications for reproductive rights and individual freedoms. It connects to the ideas of individual autonomy and the role of government in personal matters. The ruling could impact access to healthcare and public perception of the Supreme Court. The case raises questions about the right to make decisions about one's body and the ethical considerations of medical interventions. It also highlights the debate over women's healthcare and the balance between state interests and individual liberties. The speaker believes that individuals should have the right to decide if they are ready for parenthood and that banning abortion can have negative consequences for children and society. They also mention specific situations where they think a Dobbs v. Jackson, Exploring Reproductive Rights and Controversial Ideas, by Mackenzie Bullick. What is Dobbs v. Jackson? Dobbs v. Jackson is a court case argued in 2021 and settled in 2022 over the reproductive rights and constitutionality of abortion regulations in the United States. This case came from Mississippi and focused on state law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. This case questions the law of Roe v. Wade, which kept states from banning abortions before the fetus can survive outside the womb. What was decided? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the Dobbs v. Jackson case to take away the constitutional right to abortion. This overturned Roe v. Wade and created a pathway for many different states to ban abortion. This ruling is significant for the ongoing debate over resurrective freedom and constitutional protections. This case made a huge impact on reproductive rights and legal effects for women across many states. Unusual Terms. Viability, this is the stage of fetal development at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. Undue burden, this is any substantial obstacle that hinders a woman's access to abortion services. Roe v. Wade, this is a Supreme Court case from 1973 that established a woman's constitutional right to access abortion without excessive government interference. Amicus Correa, this is a personal organization that is not a party to the case but offers expertise or a perspective to assist the court in reaching a decision. Facts about the Dobbs v. Jackson court case. The parties involved in the Dobbs v. Jackson case are Thomas Dobbs, the state health officer of Mississippi, and the Jackson Women's Health Organization, the only abortion clinic in Mississippi. The main legal issue in the Dobbs v. Jackson case is the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. At first, a federal district court blocked Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban, citing the precedent set by Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions. However, the U.S. of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned this decision and upheld the Mississippi law. The outcome of Dobbs v. Jackson has significant involvement in abortion rights and legal precedence in the United States. These are just three images that are related to this case. Importance to citizens. This Dobbs v. Jackson court case is important to citizens because it impacts individual freedoms and rights. It also significantly impacted reproductive autonomy. This case goes into the question of the role of government in regulating individual choices. Choices like these are very important as they have an impact on the daily lives of individuals and their choices. This will affect future regulations on medical procedures in patients. Connection to class breeding. Number one, Locke. The Dobbs v. Jackson case connects to the Locke Second Treatise of Government because it relates to people's individual autonomy. As Locke argues that individuals will have natural rights, Dobbs v. Jackson brings up the idea of the right to make decisions about one's own body, which can include reproduction rights. Locke also argues that the government's purpose is to protect unable rights and should not violate individual liberties. The Dobbs v. Jackson case on regulations on reproduction rights brings up the discussion on the suitable role of government intervention in personal matters and the balancing of societal interests within individual rights. Locke believes that we have the right under our government to lay liberty and property, but is the ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson on the very line of violating this as it was ruled to take away freedom of choice to your own body, which no one owns, to get an abortion. Connection to class breeding. Number two, Newberg Code. The Dobbs v. Jackson case connects to the Newberg Code because it relates to the individual right to body autonomy, informed consent, and medical decision-making. Both readings address the right of individuals to make decisions about their own bodies as the Newberg Code covers that people should have a choice when it comes to what happens to them medically, and these topics were discussed with the controversial discussions over Dobbs v. Jackson. The Newberg Code and the Dobbs v. Jackson case are both similar in medical decision-making as they both connect to the ethical considerations of medical interventions, which include reproduction health. Both bring up the controversial idea of informed consent as people should have the right to make a decision on medical procedures. All these concepts bring up controversial arguments about people having the right to decide what happens to their body and be able to get an abortion, as seen in the slogan My Body, My Choice. Inclusion in class lists. I think that the Dobbs v. Jackson case was included in this class list because of how impactful the ruling was on people. This case connects to societal debates on women's health care, bodily freedoms, and the balance between states' interests and individual liberties. This case allows individuals to understand more about constitutional principles and legal reasoning while thinking about people's individual freedoms and choices. Discussion questions. What are the implications of allowing states greater discretion in regulating abortion for fetal viability, and how might this affect people's access to health care? How might the outcome of the Dobbs v. Jackson impact the public's perception of the Supreme Court role in shaping societal policies and protecting individual freedoms? If you were in charge of deciding this case, which side would you agree with? What effects do you think can come from this ruling? These are just my sources. And this is my opinion based on this case. As a woman of society, I do not believe that they have the right to make that choice for us. I think that we should have the right to decide if we are ready for the next significant step in our lives. A lot of people are not financially, mentally, or physically ready to have a child. If they get no say in that, this might end poorly for a child. I think abuse and neglect can result from this as they are forced just to have this kid. This puts more kids in adoption slash foster centers, which is already overflowing with kids. As they are put in an environment, they may not have a stable family to support them and allow them to fully develop into what they could have been. This can affect the child for the rest of their life. Children are not ready to have children. And banning abortion just causes a younger part of the population to be forced to have kids. There are many people who are not ready to have a child, and this will completely affect the rest of their life. I think there are many cases where this is unjustified, such as, for example, if a female individual gets raped. Getting raped is already a traumatic thing to deal with, and imagine being told you have to have the child of a person who mentally destroyed you. That person could end up resenting that child just because they were reminded of that horrific experience. What if that child was your daughter? How would you feel? That person could have a path in life that they set for themselves, and they might not be able to follow it now. Another example of a situation that I think is unacceptable is when the mother has no partner. If it is by choice, then that's acceptable, but if their partner just left them and they have to raise that child alone, they might not be able to support the child fully. There are many instances like this where people are not fully able to provide for a child and make them successful in their own society. Thank you.