The regulation of abortion: reflections on the Dobbs opinion

The debate on abortion often entails great moral, political and legal disagreements. This article provides a number of philosophical, political and, above all, legal thoughts around the recent and controversial opinion of the US Supreme Court on Dobbs, which overrules the famous Roe v. Wade decision. It looks at the different opinions of the justices and the possible significance of religion in explaining this brusque jurisprudential change, while recalling the importance of the separation between Church and State. As Dobbs has returned to State legislatures the law-making powers they had lost with Roe, we explore the relationship between federalism and the role of the courts. Next, we address the question on who is legitimately entitled to adopt a “theory of life”: some might say the legislatures and the voters as a whole, whereas others would answer the courts and pregnant women as individuals. Given that Dobbs represents a radical departure from one of the most well-known cases in the history of the United States of America, we also reflect on the binding nature of judicial precedent. As a final consideration, the paper warns that a regulation downplaying the value of life may lead to a normalisation and banalisation of abortion and, progressively, infanticide too.

Feu clic per accedir a n66-bossacoma-en.pdf

pau-bossacoma_the-regulation-of-abortion_rcdp-66Baixa