written by Dana M Heyde
OC Lawyer, March 2023 Vol 65 No.3 “Whos’ Who in the OCBA”
This article is written to share information that was presented to Mommy Esquire members about the policy implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 141 S, Ct. 2619 (2022)(“Dobbs”) that overruled Roe v. Wade, eliminating a pregnant woman’s constitutional right to abortion. On October 18, 2022, I moderated a webinar put on by the Mommy Esq. on “Reproductive Rights and Adoption After Dobbs”. The panel featured Angie Swanson-Kyriaco and Tracy Skaddlan.
Policy of Offering Adoptions as a Viable Alternative
In the Supreme court oral arguments and resulting Dobbs opinion, at least two Justices suggested abortion is not needed because adoption could serve as a suitable alternative to terminating one’s pregnancy. During oral arguments, Justives Barrett asked repeatedly whether carrying a pregnancy to term and then relinquishing the baby for adoption was a suitable alternative to abortion.
…Because the underlying assumption in Dobbs appears to be that adoption is a desirable alternative to early termination of a pregnancy, we as lawyers should better understand whether this underlying premise is true for pregnant women.
Pending court decisions could determine whether pregnant women have access to abortion pills within the first ten weeks of pregnancy in the United States.
Post-Dobbs Impacts on Women’s Health Overview
In California, Proposition I amends the state constitution to enshrine protections for reproductive freedom, including abortion care and contraception. However, if these medications are taken off the market nationwide, a pregnant woman’s ability to receive a legal medication abortion even in California will be severely restricted, in not limited.
To read the full article and conclusion, click here.
