Loading...
Abortion's New Criminalization-A History-and-Tradition Right to Health-Care Access after Dobbs
Siegel, Reva B. Ziegler, Mary
Siegel, Reva B.
Ziegler, Mary
Collections
Abstract
Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization reversed Roe v. Wade as contrary to the nation's history and traditions, efforts to ban abortion appear as calls for a return to tradition. But criminalization after Dobbs is not a return to the past; it is a new regime, in certain respects less restrictive, and in others far more so. Today, states criminalize access to urgently needed health care for pregnant patients in ways they never have before. Are there constitutional limits on abortion bans that restrict access to health- or life-preserving care? In Dobbs, the Court granted certiorari "to resolve the question whether 'all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.'" This Article shows that Dobbs's account of why states can criminalize "elective abortions" in turn suggests the unconstitutionality of bans that break with pastpractice in criminalizing terminations that are part of urgently needed health care under federal and state law. We show that the nation has long had a tradition of exempting critical forms of health care from criminalization, that this tradition extended to abortion law, and that it was expressed in the many state laws cited in Dobbs's appendices, as well as in the text and case law of the Comstock Act. We show that this tradition extended across jurisdictions and over time. We demonstrate that under Dobbs and Washington v. Glucksberg, such a tradition can guide interpretation of the Constitution's liberty guarantees, even if access was not historically termed a right. We show that courts in states with abortion bans often view history-and-tradition analysis of this kind as faithful to Dobbs and have begun to employ it under their own state constitutions. Finally, we defend our reading of Dobbs and substantive-due-process law against an originalist reading of Dobbs, advanced by Professor Stephen Sachs, asserting that the Fourteenth Amendment only protects rights historically recognized as such at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification. We argue that Sachs's originalist reading of the Fourteenth Amendment conflicts with important aspects of Glucksberg and Dobbs and, in the process, imposes constitutionally offensive status inequalities on the Constitution's liberty guarantees. Addressing these questions, we suggest, contributes to the broader debate about how history and tradition can guide constitutional inquiry. By no means are history and tradition the sole ground on which Americans can assert the rights in question, yet they are a critical ground--a reminder that criminalizing urgently needed health care is not what Americans traditionally do, even to pregnant women.