IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/publus/v53y2023i3p378-404..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dobbs, American Federalism, and State Abortion Policymaking: Restrictive Policies Alongside Expansion of Reproductive Rights

Author

Listed:
  • Martin K Mayer
  • John C Morris
  • Joseph A Aistrup
  • R Bruce Anderson
  • Robert C Kenter

Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade shifted abortion-policy decision-making from the national level to the state level and opened the door for states to individually determine the level of protection for reproductive rights. We examine state actions following Dobbs and discuss the near-term implications of the decision for federalism and state governments. One effect of the Dobbs decision, evident in actions taken by some state legislatures, has been to open a window for states to enact laws imposing greater limits on reproductive options for women. However, another effect of Dobbs has been to create a greater demand for confirming and in some cases expanding reproductive rights, as seen by state constitutional amendments, supreme court decisions, and statutes protecting reproductive rights and safeguarding access to abortion services.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin K Mayer & John C Morris & Joseph A Aistrup & R Bruce Anderson & Robert C Kenter, 2023. "Dobbs, American Federalism, and State Abortion Policymaking: Restrictive Policies Alongside Expansion of Reproductive Rights," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 53(3), pages 378-404.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:53:y:2023:i:3:p:378-404.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/publius/pjad012
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam Bonica & Michael J. Woodruff, 2015. "A Common-Space Measure of State Supreme Court Ideology," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(3), pages 472-498.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mayur Choudhary, 2024. "Judicial selection and production efficiency: The role of campaign finance," Discussion Papers 2024-07, Nottingham Interdisciplinary Centre for Economic and Political Research (NICEP).
    2. Bonica, Adam & Sen, Maya, 2017. "The Politics of Selecting the Bench from the Bar: The Legal Profession and Partisan Incentives to Introduce Ideology into Judicial Selection," Working Paper Series rwp17-048, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    3. Bonica, Adam & Chilton, Adam S. & Sen, Maya, 2015. "The Political Ideologies of American Lawyers," Working Paper Series 15-049, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    4. Bonica, Adam & Chilton, Adam S. & Goldin, Jacob & Rozema, Kyle & Sen, Maya, 2016. "Measuring Judicial Ideology Using Law Clerk Hiring," Working Paper Series 16-031, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    5. Abhinav Gupta & Adam J. Wowak & Warren Boeker, 2022. "Corporate directors as heterogeneous network pipes: How director political ideology affects the interorganizational diffusion of governance practices," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(8), pages 1469-1498, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:publus:v:53:y:2023:i:3:p:378-404.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/publius .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.