<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<p>This paper evaluates the majority judgment in the United States Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. It is suggested that much of what is said in the majority opinion ostensibly appears eminently defensible if viewed solely from a narrowly legalistic perspective. But closer analysis suggests that the majority's reasoning has some weaknesses when viewed within that limited paradigm. A further line of inquiry assesses whether adopting such a ‘legalistic’ approach to the question of abortion rights is in any event an appropriate position for the Court to adopt. The final section of the paper explores two additional contextual issues: the first relates to the personal ethical integrity of some of the majority judges; the second to the adequacy of State political processes as a means to address the abortion rights controversy.</p>
</abstract>

This paper evaluates the majority judgment in the United States Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. It is suggested that much of what is said in the majority opinion ostensibly appears eminently defensible if viewed solely from a narrowly legalistic perspective. But closer analysis suggests that the majority's reasoning has some weaknesses when viewed within that limited paradigm. A further line of inquiry assesses whether adopting such a ‘legalistic’ approach to the question of abortion rights is in any event an appropriate position for the Court to adopt. The final section of the paper explores two additional contextual issues: the first relates to the personal ethical integrity of some of the majority judges; the second to the adequacy of State political processes as a means to address the abortion rights controversy.

Oh What Tangled Webs We Weave—Unpacking (and Unpicking) the Majority Opinion in <italic>Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health et al. v. Jackson Women's Health Organization et al.</italic>

British Journal of American Legal Studies

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Oh What Tangled Webs We Weave—Unpacking (and Unpicking) the Majority Opinion in 

This paper evaluates the majority judgment in the United States Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. It is suggested that much of...

Oh What Tangled Webs We Weave—Unpacking (and Unpicking) the Majority Opinion in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health et al. v. Jackson Women's Health Organization et al.

Publié en ligne: 07 oct. 2023

Pages: -

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2023-0009

Mots clés
Abortion, Dobbs v. Jackson, Roe v. Wade, Stare Decisis, Judicial Lawmaking

© 2023 Ian Loveland, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Oh What Tangled Webs We Weave—Unpacking (and Unpicking) the Majority Opinion in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health et al. v. Jackson Women's Health Organization et al.

Publié en ligne: 07 oct. 2023

Pages: -

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2023-0009

Mots clésAbortion, Dobbs v. Jackson, Roe v. Wade, Stare Decisis, Judicial Lawmaking

© 2023 Ian Loveland, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Mots clés
Abortion, Dobbs v. Jackson, Roe v. Wade, Stare Decisis, Judicial Lawmaking