![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Roe v. Wade was overturned in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in June 2022. The pro-choice movement, like the pro-life movement after Roe, has suffered a major legal loss after Dobbs and should learn from the pro-life movement’s incrementalist legal strategies to slowly rebuild a constitutional right to abortion. Post-Dobbs, the pro-choice movement should pursue state constitutional level to create state constitutional rights to abortion. However, the pro-choice movement should also pursue incrementalist federal constitutional litigation in “hard cases,” cases where women with life-threatening pregnancy complications are denied abortion care, to rebuild a federal constitutional right to an abortion. While a federal constitutional case for a right to an abortion may not initially translate into legal victories, such arguments can increase public support for the pro-choice movement by reframing abortion as health care and transforming public perceptions of the women who seek abortions.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Acknowledgments
I would like to offer my special thanks to Keith Bybee and the discussants and audience members at the Gender, Sexuality, and Constitutional Equality panel at the 2022 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting for their helpful comments.
Notes
1 Amy Littlefield, “The Nation Blogs – The Nation: How Kansas Kept Abortion Legal,” The Nation Blogs, September 6, 2022, https://go.exlibris.link/gh1wTcHm.
2 The Editorial Board, “The Kansas Abortion Message,” The Wall Street Journal, August 3, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-kansas-abortion-message-referendum-constitution-supreme-court-11659536655; The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitution and Abortion Rights,” Abortion Access (New York: Center for Reproductive Rights, July 2022), https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/State-Constitutions-Report-July-2022.pdf.
3 The Editorial Board, “The Kansas Abortion Message.”
4 Littlefield, “The Nation Blogs.”
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 David Brooks, “What Would a Post-Roe America Look Like?: The Post-Roe Politics of Abortion,” The New York Times, December 10, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/10/opinion/supreme-court-abortion-roe.html.
9 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitution and Abortion Rights,”
10 Reva Siegel, “What Would a Post-Roe America Look Like?: Defending Abortion After Roe,” The New York Times, December 10, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/10/opinion/supreme-court-abortion-roe.html.
11 Margaret Huang, “Dobbs Ruling Overturning Roe v. Wade Will Roll Back the Human Rights of Many in the Deep South.” Southern Poverty Law Center, June 24, 2022, https://www.splcenter.org/presscenter/dobbs-ruling-overturning-roe-v-wade-will-roll-back-human-rights-many-deep-south.
12 Ibid.
13 Ibid.
14 Mary Ziegler 1982, After Roe: The Lost History of the Abortion Debate, (Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England; Harvard University Press, 2015).
15 Ibid., 28.
16 Kate Zernike, “A Volatile Tool Emerges in the Abortion Battle: State Constitutions,” New York Times (Online), 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/us/abortion-rights-state-constitutions.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-abortion-us&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_top_links_recirc
17 Siegel, “What Would a Post-Roe America Look Like?”; Reva B. Siegel, Serena Mayeri, and Melissa Murray, “Equal Protection in Dobbs and Beyond: How States Protect Life Inside and Outside of the Abortion Context,” Columbia Journal of Gender and Law 43, no. 1 (2022): 94.
18 Siegel, Mayeri, and Murray, “Equal Protection in Dobbs and Beyond,” 94.
19 KVUE Staff and ABC 13 Staff, “Texas Woman Says She Was Denied Abortion Care after Her Miscarriage,” KVUE ABC, August 4, 2022, https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/texas/marlena-stell-texas-miscarriage-abortion/269-72eae43f-7aeb-44a6-868a-e3dba57e8fc0.; Poppy Noor, “Five Women Denied Abortion Care in Texas Sue State over Bans,” The Guardian, March 7, 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/07/texas-abortion-women-lawsuit-ban.; Selena Simmons-Duffin, “Her Miscarriage Left Her Bleeding Profusely. An Ohio ER Sent Her Home to Wait,” NPR, November 15, 2022, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/11/15/1135882310/miscarriage-hemorrhage-abortion-law-ohio.
20 Siegel, Mayeri, and Murray, “Equal Protection in Dobbs and Beyond,” 94.
21 Douglas NeJaime, “Winning Through Losing,” Iowa Law Review 96, no. 3 (2011): 941–1012.
22 Michael McCann, “Reform Litigation on Trial,” Law & Social Inquiry 17, no. 4 (October 1, 1992): 715–43.
23 Oriana Gonzalez, “Axios: FDA Adds a Major New Twist to the Abortion Pill Fight,” Axios, January 4, 2023, https://www.axios.com/2023/01/04/lawsuit-fda-abortion-pills-mifepristone-ban.
24 McCann, “Reform Litigation on Trial,” 732.
25 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
26 Ibid.
27 “Substantive Due Process,” Legal Information Institute, April 2022, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/substantive_due_process.
28 Ibid.
29 Cass R. Sunstein, “Three Civil Rights Fallacies,” California Law Review 79, no. 3 (1991): 751–74.
30 Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “A Look At . . . Roe v. Wade v. Ginsburg: The Case Against the Case; Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Concerns About the Abortion Ruling: FINAL Edition,” The Washington Post, June 20, 1993, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1993/06/20/a-look-at-roe-v-wade-v-ginsburg-the-case-against-the-case/41596c4e-c489-4809-98ca-85dc39718932/.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022).
34 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. (2022).
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 Melvin I. Urofsky, Dissent and the Supreme Court: Its Role in the Court’s History and the Nation’s Constitutional Dialogue, First, (New York: Pantheon Books, 2015).
43 Michael McCann, “Reform Litigation on Trial,” 715–43.
44 McCann, Michael. “Law and Social Movements.” In The Blackwell Companion to Law and Society, ed. Austin Sarat, 506,508 (Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2004); McCann, Michael. “Causal versus Constitutive Explanations (or, On the Difficulty of Being so Positive.),” Law & Social Inquiry 21, no. 2 (1996): 457–82.
45 John Brigham, The Cult of the Court (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987), 196.
46 Doug McAdam, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982).
47 Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, “Principles, Practices, and Social Movements,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154, no. 4 (2006): 927–50; Reva B. Siegel, “Text in Contest: Gender and the Constitution from a Social Movement Perspective,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 150, no. 1 (2001): 297–351.
48 Elizabeth M Schneider, “The Dialectic of Rights and Politics - Perspectives from the Women’s Movement,” New York University Law Review (1950) 61, no. 4 (1986): 606.
49 Gerald N. Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change? 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008).
50 Ibid., 422.
51 McCann, “Reform Litigation on Trial,” 715–743.
52 Ibid.
53 NeJaime, “Winning through Losing,” 943–948.
54 Ibid.
55 Ibid.
56 William N. Eskridge, “Some Effects of Identity-Based Social Movements on Constitutional Law in the Twentieth Century.” Michigan Law Review 100, no. 8 (2002): 2195.
57 NeJaime, “Winning through Losing,” 972–975.
58 Ibid., 969–972.
59 Michael McCann. “How Does Law Matter for Social Movements?” In How Does Law Matter?, ed. Bryant G. Garth and Austin Sarat (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1998), 91.
60 Sunstein, “Three Civil Rights Fallacies,” 751–74.
61 Ben Depoorter, “The Upside of Losing,” Columbia Law Review 113, no. 3 (2013): 836.
62 Joshua C. Wilson, The Street Politics of Abortion: Speech, Violence, and America’s Culture Wars. (Stanford, California: Stanford Law Books, an imprint of Stanford University Press), 2013, 21.
63 Wilson, The Street Politics of Abortion, 20–21.
64 Ibid., 20.
65 Ibid., 118.
66 Michael W. McCann 1952, Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 63–68.
67 Wilson, The Street Politics of Abortion, 115.
68 Ibid., 121–122.
69 Siegel, Mayeri, and Murray, “Equal Protection in Dobbs and Beyond,” 94.
70 Jennifer Friesen (a), State Constitutional Law: Litigating Individual Rights, Claims, and Defenses (New York, NY: M. Bender, 1992), 1–4, 1–5.
71 Ibid.
72 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitution and Abortion Rights,” 4.
73 Friesen (a), State Constitutional Law, 1–5.
74 James Romoser, “State Supreme Court Races are the Sleeping Giant of the Midterms,” National Journal Daily A.M., October 17, 2022.
75 Friesen (a), State Constitutional Law, 1–5, 1–49.
76 Ibid.
77 Ibid., 1–46.
78 Laura Kusisto, “Lawsuits to Test Whether State Constitutions Protect Abortion Rights; After Demise of Roe v. Wade, Abortion Providers and Advocacy Groups Argue State Laws Should Be Read to Protect Access to the Procedure,” The Wall Street Journal, July 9, 2022, https://go.exlibris.link/Cc94lG6h.
79 Friesen (a), State Constitutional Law, 1–19.
80 Kusisto, “Lawsuits to Test Whether State Constitutions Protect Abortion Rights.”
81 Friesen (a), State Constitutional Law, 1–19.
82 Romoser, “State Supreme Court Races Are the Sleeping Giant of the Midterms.”
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid.
85 Friesen (a), State Constitutional Law, 1–19.
86 Ibid.
87 Ibid., 1–20.
88 Ibid.
89 Jennifer Friesen (b), State Constitutional Law: Litigating Individual Rights, Claims, and Defenses, 4th ed. (Newark, NJ: LexisNexis Matthew Bender, 2006), 2–2.
90 Paul Benjamin Linton, Abortion under State Constitutions: A State-by-State Analysis, (Durham, N.C: Carolina Academic Press, 2008), 4.
91 Friesen (b), State Constitutional Law, 2–3.
92 Linton, Abortion under State Constitutions, 117.
93 Ibid.
94 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitutions and Abortion Rights,” 15.
95 Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).
96 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitution and Abortion Rights.” 15.
97 Ibid., 19.
98 Ibid., 22, 25.; Nine states in total are under court orders to provide Medicaid funding for abortion above the federal baseline. An additional seven states provide Medicaid funding for abortion voluntarily. The Guttmacher Institute, “State Funding of Abortion Under Medicaid,” Guttmacher Institute, February 1, 2023, https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/state-funding-abortion-under-medicaid.
99 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitution and Abortion Rights,” 19.
100 Linton, Abortion under State Constitutions, 7.
101 Ibid.
102 Elizabeth Nash and Peter Ephross, “State Policy Trends 2022: In a Devastating Year, US Supreme Court’s Decision to Overturn Roe Leads to Bans, Confusion and Chaos,” Guttmacher Institute, December 12, 2022, https://www.guttmacher.org/2022/12/state-policy-trends-2022-devastating-year-us-supreme-courts-decision-overturn-roe-leads.
103 Oriana Gonzalez, “Axios: FDA Adds a Major New Twist to the Abortion Pill Fight.” Axios, January 4, 2023, https://www.axios.com/2023/01/04/lawsuit-fda-abortion-pills-mifepristone-ban.
104 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitution and Abortion Rights.”
105 Kate Zernike, “A Volatile Tool Emerges in the Abortion Battle: State Constitutions,” New York Times, January 29, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/us/abortion-rights-state-constitutions.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-abortion-us&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_top_links_recirc.
106 These states include Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Washington; Nick Ehli, “Privacy Rights in State Constitutions May Protect Their Abortion Access,” Women’s Healthcare, February 17, 2022, https://www.npwomenshealthcare.com/privacy-rights-in-state-constitutions-may-protect-their-abortion-access/.
107 These ten states have not reversed their state constitutional abortion rights via state courts or via constitutional amendment. Friesen (b), State Constitutional Law. 2–4, 2–5.
108 Ibid.; Kate Zernike, “South Carolina Constitution Includes Right to Abortion, State Court Says: National Desk,” The New York Times, 2023, Late (East Coast) edition, https://go.exlibris.link/DldjPqXC.
109 Linton, Abortion under State Constitutions, 275, 293, 298, 357, 369–370.
110 Ibid., 293, 275, 369–370.
111 Ibid., 293.
112 Ibid.
113 Ibid.
114 Ibid.
115 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitution and Abortion Rights.”
116 Linton, Abortion under State Constitutions, 46, 48, 357.; The Arizona Supreme Court has not declared that the Arizona Constitution protects a right to an abortion; The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitution and Abortion Rights,” 23–24.
117 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitution and Abortion Rights.”
118 These states include Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Linton, Abortion under State Constitutions, 32, 53, 79, 96, 127, 146, 177, 213, 246, 260, 302, 321, 333, 345, 373, 388, 400, 415, 430, 442, 475, 490, 512, 534, 548, 563, 577, 591; Victoria Antram, “Delaware Legislature Amends State Constitution to Prohibit Discrimination According to Race, Color, National Origin,” Ballotpedia News, February 2, 2021, https://news.ballotpedia.org/2021/02/02/delaware-legislature-amends-state-constitution-to-prohibit-discrimination-according-to-race-color-national-origin/#:∼:text=With%20the%20recent%20amendment%2C%20the%20section%20reads%3A%20%E2%80%9CEquality,can%20also%20be%20amended%20through%20a%20constitutional%20convention.; Haw. Const. Art. I, § 6.
119 The states with equal rights amendments include Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Sadie Logerfo-Olsen et al., “State-Level Equal Rights Amendments,” Brennan Center for Justice, December 6, 2022, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-level-equal-rights-amendments.
120 These states include Arizona and Nebraska; Sadie Logerfo-Olsen et al., “State-Level Equal Rights Amendments.”
121 Sadie Logerfo-Olsen et al., “State-Level Equal Rights Amendments.”
122 The thirty states with unused equality provisions and the thirteen states with unused equal rights amendments do not contain a right to an abortion either explicitly or grounded in an alternative constitutional provision, such as a right to privacy. Additionally, these states do not include states, like Iowa, that have equality provisions but whose protection of abortion rights has been reversed by a state supreme court. Linton, Abortion under State Constitutions, 32, 53, 79, 96, 127, 146, 177, 213, 246, 260, 302, 321, 333, 345, 373, 388, 400, 415, 430, 442, 475, 490, 512, 534, 548, 563, 577, 591; Antram, “Delaware Legislature Amends State Constitution”; Haw. Const. Art. I, § 6; Stefanie Lindquist, “Iowa Capital Dispatch – States Newsroom: State Courts from Oregon to Georgia Will Now Decide Who – If Anyone – Can Get an Abortion under 50 Different State Constitutions,” Iowa Capital Dispatch, no. Generic (June 26, 2022), https://go.exlibris.link/c0JLV8FJ.
123 Linton, Abortion under State Constitution, 32, 53, 79, 96, 127, 146, 177, 213, 246, 260, 302, 321, 333, 345, 373, 388, 400, 415, 430, 442, 475, 490, 512, 534, 548, 563, 577, 591.
124 Friesen (b), State Constitutional Law, 3–6.
125 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitution and Abortion Rights,” 16.
126 Ibid.
127 Friesen (b), State Constitutional Law, 3–2.
128 Ibid., 3–10, 3–11.
129 The U.S. Constitution assesses racial discrimination with strict scrutiny and gender discrimination with the less stringent intermediate scrutiny. Ibid., 3–2.
130 Wicker Perlis, “Mississippi Judge Hears Attempt to Keep Abortion Legal. No Decision Yet.,” Clarion Ledger, July 5, 2022, https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2022/07/05/mississippi-abortion-ban-hearing/7812472001/.
131 Nick Ehli, “Privacy Rights in State Constitutions.”
132 Linton, Abortion under State Constitutions.
133 Reva Siegel, “What Would a Post-Roe America Look Like?”
134 Linton, Abortion under State Constitutions.
135 Romoser, “State Supreme Court Races Are the Sleeping Giant of the Midterms.”
136 Kate Zernike, “South Carolina Constitution Includes Right to Abortion, State Court Says: National Desk,” The New York Times, January 6, 2023, https://go.exlibris.link/DldjPqXC.
137 Ibid.
138 Ibid.
139 Liu, “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights”; “State Abortion Bans Hit Legal Hurdles Some Bans Appear to Conflict with State Constitutions despite the High Court Ruling,” Portland Press Herald, July 14, 2022, A1.
140 Kate Zernike, “A Volatile Tool Emerges in the Abortion Battle: State Constitutions,” New York Times (Online), 2023.
141 Nick Ehli, “State Constitutions Vex Conservatives’ Strategies for a Post-Roe World: Montana Could Become Haven for Women Seeking Abortions,” Great Falls Tribune [Great Falls, Mont.: 1921], 2022.
142 Zernike, “A Volatile Tool Emerges in the Abortion Battle.”
143 Kusisto, “Lawsuits to Test Whether State Constitutions Protect Abortion Rights.”
144 Zernike, “A Volatile Tool Emerges in the Abortion Battle.”
145 Kusisto, “Lawsuits to Test Whether State Constitutions Protect Abortion Rights”
146 Zernike, “A Volatile Tool Emerges in the Abortion Battle.”
147 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “Texas Abortion Ban Emergency Exceptions Case: Zurawski v. State of Texas,” Center for Reproductive Rights, March 6, 2023, https://reproductiverights.org/case/zurawski-v-texas-abortion-emergency-exceptions/zurawski-v-texas/.
148 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitution and Abortion Rights,” 17–19.
149 Liu, “State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights.”; Lindquist, “Iowa Capital Dispatch – States Newsroom: State Courts from Oregon to Georgia Will Now Decide Who – If Anyone – Can Get an Abortion under 50 Different State Constitutions.”
150 Ehli, “State Constitutions Vex Conservatives’ Strategies for a Post-Roe World.”
151 Ehli, “State Constitutions Vex Conservatives’ Strategies for a Post-Roe World: Montana Could Become Haven for Women Seeking Abortions.”
152 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitution and Abortion Rights.”
153 Ehli, “State Constitutions Vex Conservatives’ Strategies for a Post-Roe World.”
154 Kusisto, “Lawsuits to Test Whether State Constitutions Protect Abortion Rights.”
155 Ibid.
156 Ehli, “State Constitutions Vex Conservatives’ Strategies for a Post-Roe World.”
157 Ibid.
158 Alice Miranda Ollstein, “Michigan Votes to Put Abortion Rights into State Constitution,” Politico, November 9, 2022, https://go.exlibris.link/4QD6sXXb.
159 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “Backlash against Anti-Abortion Laws Produces New Legal Strategies, More Secure Rights,” Center for Reproductive Rights, January 20, 2023, https://reproductiverights.org/msnbc-northup-roe-v-wade-anniversary/.
160 New York Office of the Governor Kathy Hochul, “Governor Hochul Celebrates Passage of Resolution to Enshrine Equal Rights into the New York State Constitution,” US Official News, 2022, https://go.exlibris.link/gF4rc3Lj.
161 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “U.S. Repro Watch, Feb. 1,” Center for Reproductive Rights, February 1, 2023, https://reproductiverights.org/u-s-repro-watch-2-1-23/.
162 Ava Sasani, “Idaho Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Bans,” New York Times (Online), January 29, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/us/abortion-rights-state-constitutions.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-abortion-us&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_top_links_recirc.
163 Sasani, “Idaho Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Bans.”
164 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “Lawsuit Filed to Block Mississippi Trigger Ban,” Center for Reproductive Rights, June 27, 2022, https://reproductiverights.org/lawsuit-filed-to-block-mississippi-trigger-ban/.
165 Ibid.
166 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “Mississippi,” Center for Reproductive Rights, https://reproductiverights.org/maps/state/mississippi/.
167 Zernike, “A Volatile Tool Emerges in the Abortion Battle.”
168 Ibid.
169 Friesen (a), State Constitutional Law, 1–5, 1–49.
170 Ibid., 1–5, 1–49.
171 Perlis, “Mississippi Judge Hears Attempt to Keep Abortion Legal.”
172 Friesen (b), State Constitutional Law, 3–10, 3–11.
173 Ibid., 3–2.
174 Jenny Ma, the senior attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, describes the pro-life movement’s litigation strategy as “throwing the kitchen sink in an attempt to see what might work.” Rachel Cohen, “The New Front in the Right’s War on Abortion,” Vox, January 9, 2023, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2023/1/9/23540562/abortion-pills-medication-dobbs-roe-mifepristone.
175 Zernike, “South Carolina Constitution Includes Right to Abortion, State Court Says.”
176 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitution and Abortion Rights,” 15.
177 Ibid.
178 Ibid., 4.
179 Kusisto, “Lawsuits to Test Whether State Constitutions Protect Abortion Rights.”
180 Planned Parenthood of the Heartland v. Reynolds ex rel. State, 915 N.W.2d 234 (Iowa 2018).
181 Ibid.
182 Lindquist, “Iowa Capital Dispatch – States Newsroom: State Courts from Oregon to Georgia Will Now Decide Who – If Anyone – Can Get an Abortion under 50 Different State Constitutions.”
183 Kusisto, “Lawsuits to Test Whether State Constitutions Protect Abortion Rights.”
184 Oriana González, “Two New Abortion Pill Lawsuits Could Have Major Federal Consequences,” Axios, January 26, 2023, https://www.axios.com/2023/01/26/abortion-pill-lawsuits-fda-mifepristone-roe.
185 Ruth Marcus, “Can Medical Abortions Survive in the Post-Roe Era?,” Washington Post.Com, January 30, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/30/medicalabortions-mifepristone-dobbs-texas/.
186 The Guttmacher Institute, “Medication Abortion: Background,” Guttmacher Institute, February 6, 2023, https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/medication-abortion.
187 Ibid.
188 Gonzalez, “Two New Abortion Pill Lawsuits Could Have Major Federal Consequences.”
189 Ibid.
190 Ibid.
191 Ibid.
192 Jacob Knutson, “AG Garland: States Can’t Ban FDA-Approved Abortion Pills on Safety Grounds,” Axios, June 24, 2022, https://www.axios.com/2022/06/24/merrick-garland-fda-abortion-pills-state-bans.
193 Jonathan Stempel and Brendan Pierson, “Lawsuits Filed over U.S. State Restrictions on Abortion Pills,” Reuters, January 25, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-abortion-pill-maker-doctor-challenge-state-curbs-lawsuits-2023-01-25/.
194 Anthony J. Majestro et al., “In the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia Huntington Division” (Democracy Forward, January 25, 2023), 6, https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/33-0-Complaint.pdf.
195 Gonzalez, “Two New Abortion Pill Lawsuits Could Have Major Federal Consequences.”
196 Ibid.
197 Ibid.
198 Ibid.
199 Ibid.
200 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “U.S. Repro Watch, Feb. 1.”
201 Marcus, “Can Medical Abortions Survive in the Post-Roe Era?”
202 Gonzalez, “Axios: FDA Adds a Major New Twist to the Abortion Pill Fight.”
203 Marcus, “Can Medical Abortions Survive in the Post-Roe Era?”
204 Ibid.
205 Ibid.
206 These states include Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont. Sasani, “Idaho Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Bans.”
207 Pam Belluck, “12 States Sue F.D.A., Seeking Removal of Special Restrictions on Abortion Pill,” The New York Times, February 24, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/24/health/abortion-pills-fda-lawsuit.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-abortion-us&variant=show®ion=MAIN_CONTENT_1&block=storyline_top_links_recirc.
208 Belluck, “12 States Sue F.D.A., Seeking Removal of Special Restrictions on Abortion Pill.”
209 Cass Sunstein et al., Are Judges Political?: An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2006), 108, https://go.exlibris.link/b8LC1svw.
210 Belluck, “12 States Sue F.D.A., Seeking Removal of Special Restrictions on Abortion Pill.”
211 Ziegler, After Roe, 27.
212 Ibid., 62.
213 Ibid., 62.
214 Ibid., 67.
215 Ibid., 67.
216 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992).
217 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. (2022).
218 Siegel, Mayeri, and Murray, “Equal Protection in Dobbs and Beyond,” 94.
219 Ibid.
220 Ibid., 73–79.
221 Ibid.
222 Ibid., 73-93.
223 United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 533 (1996).
224 Siegel, Mayeri, and Murray, “Equal Protection in Dobbs and Beyond,” 73–79.
225 Ibid., 75–77.
226 Ibid., 75–77.
227 Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721, 736 (2003).
228 Siegel, Mayeri, and Murray, “Equal Protection in Dobbs and Beyond,” 68.
229 Ibid., 73–79.
230 Ziegler, After Roe, 30.
231 Ibid., 30.
232 Austin Kaplan et al., “Zurawski v. State of Texas: Zurawski v. State of Texas: Plaintiffs’ “Original Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Application for Permanent Injunction” Center for Reproductive Rights, March 6, 2023, https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Zurawski-v-State-of-Texas-Complaint.pdf.
233 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “Texas Abortion Ban Emergency Exceptions Case: Zurawski v. State of Texas.”
234 Ibid.
235 Kaplan et al., “Zurawski v. State of Texas,” 82–83.
236 Ibid., 83.
237 Ibid., 82.
238 Ibid., 83.
239 Ibid., 82–84.
240 Ibid., 82–84.
241 Siegel, Mayeri, and Murray, “Equal Protection in Dobbs and Beyond,” 94.
242 Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721, 736 (2003).
243 Siegel, Mayeri, and Murray, “Equal Protection in Dobbs and Beyond,” 75–77.
244 The Center for Reproductive Rights, “State Constitution and Abortion Rights.”
245 Wilson, The Street Politics of Abortion, 115.
246 Julie Rovner, “Roe v. Wade Turns 40, But Abortion Debate Is Even Older,” NPR, January 22, 2013, https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/01/22/169637288/roe-v-wade-turns-40-but-abortion-debate-is-even-older.
247 Linton, Abortion under State Constitutions, 117.
248 Ibid.
249 Hoekstra along with Haider-Markel, Allen, and Johansen find that legal issues of higher salience (i.e. national issues) are likely to receive greater media coverage than legal issues of lesser salience. Valerie J. Hoekstra 1968, Public Reaction to Supreme Court Decisions (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Donald P. Haider-Markel, Mahalley D. Allen, and Morgen Johansen, “Understanding Variations in Media Coverage of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: Comparing Media Outlets in Their Coverage of Lawrence v. Texas,” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 11, no. 2 (2006): 68.
250 KVUE Staff and ABC 13 Staff, “Texas Woman Says She Was Denied Abortion Care after Her Miscarriage.”; Noor, “Five Women Denied Abortion Care in Texas Sue State over Bans.”; Simmons-Duffin, “Her Miscarriage Left Her Bleeding Profusely.”
251 KVUE Staff and ABC 13 Staff, “Texas Woman Says She Was Denied Abortion Care after Her Miscarriage”; Noor, “Five Women Denied Abortion Care in Texas Sue State over Bans”; Simmons-Duffin, “Her Miscarriage Left Her Bleeding Profusely.”
252 Ziegler, After Roe, 28.
253 Charles H. Franklin and Liane C. Kosaki, “Republican Schoolmaster: The U.S. Supreme Court, Public Opinion, and Abortion,” The American Political Science Review 83, no. 3 (1989): 768.
254 Franklin and Kosaki, “Republican Schoolmaster,” 768.
255 Ibid., 768.
256 Ibid., 768.
257 Siegel, Mayeri, and Murray, “Equal Protection in Dobbs and Beyond,” 94.
258 Mallary Allen, “Narrative Diversity and Sympathetic Abortion: What Online Storytelling Reveals About the Prescribed Norms of the Mainstream Movements,” Symbolic Interaction 38, no. 1 (2015): 42–63.
259 These results were collected by conducting a search of news article on Nexus Uni with the search terms “Zurawski v. State of Texas” and “Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA” on March 27, 2023. Duplicate articles were grouped together and results were limited to mentions between March 6, 2023 (when Zurawski was filed) and March 27, 2023. “Results for: Zurawski v. State of Texas,” Nexus Uni, Search Terms: Time: Previous Month; Content Type: All News; Group Duplicates: On; https://advance.lexis.com/api/permalink/3e0b5762-173d-41a7-942a-b9db6af31452/?context=1516831.; “Results for: Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA,” Nexus Uni, Search Terms: Time: Previous Month; Content Type: All News; Group Duplicates: On; https://advance.lexis.com/api/permalink/3e0b5762-173d-41a7-942a-b9db6af31452/?context=1516831.
260 Hoekstra, Public Reaction to Supreme Court Decisions.; Haider-Markel, Allen, and Johansen, “Understanding Variations in Media Coverage of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions,” 68.
261 Franklin and Kosaki, “Republican Schoolmaster,” 768.
262 Allen, “Narrative Diversity and Sympathetic Abortion.”
263 Ziegler, After Roe, 3.
264 The Editorial Board, “The Kansas Abortion Message.”
265 Ibid.
266 Ibid.
267 Romoser, “State Supreme Court Races Are the Sleeping Giant of the Midterms.”
268 McCann, Rights at Work.
269 Scherer, Michael and Rachel Roubein. "Some Republicans Push for Abortion Bans without Rape, Incest Exceptions." The Washington Post, July 16, 2022. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/15/abortion-exceptions-republicans/
270 Hoekstra, Public Reaction to Supreme Court Decisions; Haider-Markel, Allen, and Johansen, “Understanding Variations in Media Coverage of U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.”
271 Siegel, Mayeri, and Murray, “Equal Protection in Dobbs and Beyond,” 68.
272 Zernike, “A Volatile Tool Emerges in the Abortion Battle”; Ziegler, After Roe.
273 Littlefield, “The Nation Blogs – The Nation.”