Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health continues a trajectory of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence that undermines the normative foundation of public health — the idea that the state is obligated to provide a robust set of supports for healthcare services and the underlying social determinants of health. Dobbs furthers a longstanding ideology of individual responsibility in public health, neglecting collective responsibility for better health outcomes. Such an ideology on individual responsibility not only (...) enables a shrinking of public health infrastructure for reproductive health, it facilitates the rise of reproductive coercion and a criminal legal response to pregnancy and abortion. This commentary situates Dobbs in the context of a long historical shift in public health that increasingly places burdens on individuals for their own reproductive health care, moving away from the possibility of a robust state public health infrastructure. (shrink)

In this paper, I will examine the Supreme Court of the United States’ (SCOTUS) arguments in the majority decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and I will show how some of those arguments are flawed. Primarily, I will show that the right to bodily autonomy is a well-established right, both in the courts and in societal practices, and that the right to an abortion should be understood as an example of the right to bodily (...) autonomy or bodily integrity. Second, I will examine the justices’ arguments that viability is not a reasonable place to restrict abortion access, in contrast to both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and will offer arguments that defend viability as a valid point to limit abortion access. Third, I will highlight some politicians’ goals to enact a federal ban on abortion, and show how the attempt to pass Personhood Amendments is a pathway for doing so. The upshot of this essay to is show how the SCOTUS decision is flawed, and how granting personhood to “potential life” has consequences that extend beyond abortion access. (shrink)

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Supreme Court eliminated the long‐standing federal constitutional right to abortion. Discussions of Dobbs tend to emphasize the loss of protection for reproductive choice. But Dobbs also eroded protection for a related yet distinctly important interest that served under Roe v. Wade as a check on government regulation of reproduction: the preservation of health. This erasure has opened the door to increasingly restrictive and punitive abortion bans, which (...) are causing providers to deny or delay care that is necessary to prevent harm to both pregnant and nonpregnant patients. Federal regulatory attempts to prevent these harms will have limited impact, partially due to Congress's own history of exceptionalizing abortion in ways that devalue health. Only federal legislation can ensure adequate and enduring protection for the health of women, trans men, and other patients targeted for reproductive control because of their capacity for pregnancy. (shrink)

The intrusive state has long viewed women as fetal containers. The Dobbs decision goes further, essentially causing women to vanish when fetuses are abstracted from their relationships to pregnant persons. The ways in which women are first controlled and then made invisible are clearly connected with the move from obedience to omission that has historically affected black Americans. When personal decisionmaking and participation in democracy are regarded as threats, those threatened restrict decisional freedom and political power, deepening structural injustices (...) relating to sex, race, and poverty. Fear of Dobbs has health effects on conditions unrelated to pregnancy and connects with erasures of human value that are not health-related. We reaffirm solidarity as a countering influence. Taking account of the richly relational context in which issues like abortion and political representation arise should lead to better, more meaningful policies, making so many people impossible to unsee. (shrink)

Amid undulating conceptions of the role and prowess of federalism emerges its central constitutional role: protecting American liberties against unwarranted governmental intrusions. To the extent that federalism is used as a guise for withdrawing fundamental rights to abortion by the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, individual rights are sacrificed in contravention of constitutional structural norms.

When we conceptualized this symposium, Roe v. Wade1 was still the law of the land, albeit precariously. We aimed to commemorate its fiftieth anniversary by exploring historical, legal, medical, and related dimensions of access to abortion as well as the challenges ahead to secure reproductive justice. With the leak of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization on May 2, 2022, we shifted to mark the dawn of a new era. In (...) the nearly identical official opinion announced on June 24, 2022,2 Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority (6-3), overturned Roe and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey.3. (shrink)

The end of the constitutional right to abortion with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health stands to generate massive conflict between abortion regulation and the First Amendment. Abortion exceptionalism within constitutional doctrine -- which both treats abortion differently than other areas and favors anti-abortion over pro-choice viewpoints -- will not retreat but advance, unless confronted by the courts.

Minkoff et al. (2024) discuss the potential deprivation of medical liberties against pregnant persons following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Another consideration is how Dobbs may impact physic...

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court decision not only upended constitutional protections for abortion in the United States but also bolstered legislative and cultural int...

In June 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v. Wade. The European Court of Human Rights is also expected to decide on several abortion cases. In this paper, the interpretative approaches of both courts are compared. Whereas the U.S. Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decided on an originalist approach to the Constitution, the highest European court has always regarded the European Convention on Human Rights as a living instrument. (...) As a result, domestic laws regulating the interruption of pregnancy are seen by the Strasbourg court as interferences with a fundamental right, the right to respect for private life. Although member states of the Council of Europe enjoy a wide margin of appreciation with regard to the circumstances in which abortion will be permitted, its highest court put forward the state’s positive obligation to secure pregnant women’s right to effective respect for their physical and psychological integrity in several landmark judgments. In this way, it ensures the existence of effective mechanisms in countries with a poor record of implementing the right to a lawful abortion. Albeit at a minimum, the Strasbourg court offers protection, whereas the U.S. Supreme Court no longer does. (shrink)

On 24 July 2022, the landmark decision Roe v. Wade (1973), that secured a right to abortion for decades, was overruled by the US Supreme Court. The Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation severely restricts access to legal abortion care in the USA, since it will give the states the power to ban abortion. It has been claimed that overruling Roe will have disproportionate impacts on women of color and that restricting access to (...) abortion contributes to or amounts to structural racism. In this paper, we consider whether restricting abortion access as a consequence of overruling Roe could be understood as discrimination against women of color (and women in general). We argue that banning abortion is indirectly discriminatory against women of color and directly (but neither indirectly, nor structurally) discriminatory against women in general. (shrink)

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court removed constitutional protection from the individual's right to end a pregnancy. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Court invalidated previous rulings protecting that right as part of the individual liberty and privacy interests embedded in the U.S. Constitution. Now, many observers are speculating about the fate of other rights founded on those interests. The Dobbs ruling conflicts with the Court's 1990 Cruzan decision restricting the government's power to interfere (...) with personal medical choices. The language and reasoning in Dobbs and Cruzan offer guidance on how the Court might address future cases involving the right to refuse life‐sustaining treatment. The decisions also point to policy strategies for preserving that right. (shrink)

This article explores how abortion bans in states with large Black populations will exacerbate existing racial inequities in those states’ child welfare systems.

The Supreme Court decided Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky in 2019. Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion in the case claimed there was a direct connection between the legalization of abortion, in the late 20th Century, and the beginnings of the birth control movement a full three quarters of a century earlier. “Many eugenicists,” Thomas argued, “supported legalizing abortion.”Justice Samuel Alito highlighted similar claims in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, citing a brief entitled “The Eugenic (...) Era Lives on through the Abortion Movement.” That brief was an echo of Justice Thomas’ misguided attempt at history in the Box opinion. Similar claims reoccur in Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s opinion in the Texas mifepristone case, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.These false claims are the focus of this article. There is no evidence that early leaders of the eugenics movement supported abortion as part of the movement for birth control. It is accurate to describe those leaders as anti-abortion, and their followers as people who condemned abortion for moral, legal, and medical reasons. (shrink)

The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 5 A states that the maternal mortality ratio has to be reduced to three-quarters between 1990 and 2015. The target for India is a maternal mortality ratio of 109/100,000 live births. The Janani Suraksha Yojna (JSY) (Maternal Protection Scheme) is a centrally sponsored conditional cash transfer scheme to promote institutional deliveries and thus ensure safe delivery and reduce maternal mortality. The JSY scheme and its various evaluations were reviewed. The Tannahill’s ethical framework was applied to (...) the JSY and analyzed. Evaluations have shown that the JSY has significantly increased institutional deliveries. The public health system is not fully geared up for delivering good quality maternal health services. Thus encouraging women to go to them violates the principle of doing good. There are several barriers for availing the scheme. Procuring the certificates to meet eligibility can be difficult. The women do not have power over the cash incentive. There are large inequities in access to the JSY scheme based on socioeconomic status, caste and education. The accountability mechanisms for the scheme are weak at the grassroots level. Without an overall improvement in health system and awareness among women, the JSY cannot be said to empower the women in a sustainable way. In order, that the increases in institutional deliveries due to JSY are more than just a Hawthorne effect, which is a change in behavior just due to the fact that the population is being closely observed and intervened, there is a need to bridge the ethical gaps in the program to make it an empowering, sustainable, accountable and just one. (shrink)

The Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, first leaked to the public on 2 May 2022 and officially released on 24 June 2022, overturned Roe v. Wade and thereby determined that abortion is no longer a federally protected right under the Constitution. Instead, the decision gives individual states the right to regulate abortion. Since the Dobbs decision first leaked, our institution has received numerous requests for permanent contraception from individuals stating that their (...) motivation to pursue permanent contraception was influenced by the Dobbs decision and concerns about their reproductive autonomy. Discussions with patients seeking permanent contraception since the Supreme Court’s leaked decision have led us to ask ourselves, is legislative anxiety an indication for surgery? This article presents a case series consisting of a convenience sample of 17 young, nulliparous individuals who sought out permanent contraception in the six months following the leak of the Dobbs decision. Healthcare professionals often feel discomfort in offering permanent contraception to young and nulliparous individuals. Accordingly, we discuss pertinent legal issues, review relevant ethical considerations, and offer a framework for these discussions intended to empower the consulting healthcare professional to center the bodily autonomy of every patient regardless of age, parity, or indication for permanent contraception. (shrink)

The global impact of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and the backlash towards reproductive justice that it represents warrant a global feminist response informed by broad theoretical and geopolitical lenses. We consider how a solidaristic, transnational feminist movement might learn from Latin American feminist movements that have been successful in uniting broad coalitions in the fight for reproductive justice as situated within far-reaching political goals. The success of such a global movement must be decolonial and (...) must contend with the fact that overlapping realities of global inequality, severe poverty, extractivism, and western-backed violence are fundamentally implicated in reproductive justice. (shrink)

In this article it will be concluded that systematic menstrual tracking in women’s sport has the potential to cause harm to athletes. Since the ruling of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) in the United States, concerns regarding menstrual health tracking have arisen. Research suggests that the menstrual tracking of female athletes presents potential risks to “women’s autonomy, privacy, and safety in sport” (Casto 2022, 1725). At present, the repercussions of systematic menstrual (...) tracking are particularly under-scrutinized, and this paper seeks to combine novel research in the sport sciences with present ethical debates in the philosophy of sports. Utilizing Beauvoir’s feminist philosophy (2011), this paper argues that systematic menstrual tracking may contribute to the wider system of women’s oppression by exploiting female athletes, as well as enabling the internalization of submissive behaviour in cultures where athletes are expected to comply unquestioningly. Five policy recommendations are made concerning autonomy, informed consent, education, safeguarding and data access. The overall findings of this paper propose that a more in-depth understanding of the links between data, privacy, and the menstrual cycle are required by sports organizations and governing bodies if athletes are to be protected in a future where systematic menstrual tracking is inevitable. (shrink)

Although this article uses Obergefell v Hodges (2015) as its frame, it aims to bring out some distinctive features of Justice Kennedy’s jurisprudence of dignity more broadly. There are two reasons why such an investigation is important. The first is important to those interested in the legal case. Indeed, in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health (2022), the Court now argues that the relevant ‘test’ for determining whether a right is protected under the Due Process Clause is (...) whether the right is found to be ‘deeply rooted’ in the nation’s history and tradition. This article aims to critique this decision, as well as originalist approaches to constitutional interpretation more broadly, and seeks to resurrect and reconstruct Kennedy’s jurisprudence of dignity that has undergirded (sometimes quietly) the expansion of civil rights protections to the LGBTQ+ community. The second reason this investigation is important is of interest to philosophers and legal historians. Dignity is a notoriously elusive concept, and much ink has been spilt trying to sort out the precise nature of its content and its boundaries. This article brings together the many (seemingly disparate) uses of dignity found across cases involving gay rights, abortion, and foreign sovereign immunity, and argues Kennedy effectively weaves these uses together in ways that may sharpen our understanding of dignity in both the philosophical and legal literatures. (shrink)

The loss of the federally protected constitutional right to an abortion is a threat to the already tenuous autonomy of pregnant people, and may augur future challenges to their right to refuse unwanted obstetric interventions. Even before Roe’s demise, pregnancy led to constraints on autonomy evidenced by clinician-led legal incursions against patients who refused obstetric interventions. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court found that the right to liberty espoused in the Constitution does (...) not extend to a pregnant person’s right to an abortion. With Roe’s demise, the right to request specific types of care has been vitiated. The same argument underpinning that holding may now become ballast for attacks on the traditionally more robust right, the right to refuse. Here we discuss how the elevation of fetal and embryonic rights may lead to a cascade of medical intrusions and deprivations of liberty against pregnant persons, and offer an argument opposing these improprieties. (shrink)

The upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has the potential to eliminate or severely restrict access to legal abortion care in the United States. We a...

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization plunged the United States into a devastating public health crisis. While we have some evidence of the deep harms that ab...

The Supreme Court’s antiabortion opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., which overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Penn. v. Casey, on the one-hand suggests that the Court may be moving toward eliminating all non-enumerated fundamental rights not deeply rooted in the Nation’s longstanding history and tradition. On the other hand, it may suggest only that the Court might be just opening the door to overruling specific non-enumerated rights with which it no (...) longer agrees. Either way, many long-recognized, non-enumerated, human rights, beyond abortion that are essential to individual autonomy and human dignity are now up for grabs. Such rights in the area of privacy law will most likely include not just abortion, but also contraception, interracial marriage, and the Court’s more recent recognition of same-sex marriage, and possibly still other precedents, including whether states can criminalize adult consensual same-sex behavior in private. More importantly, the proposed foundation for this Court’s potential departure from its past case precedents cannot be justified even by claiming such rights are not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition. As I hope to show in this article, neither from the point of view of looking to this Nation’s longstanding history and traditions, if properly understood, nor from the point of view of allowing Equal Protection to aide in identifying forms of discrimination not previously recognized or afforded much attention, can departures from past human rights precedents based in autonomy be justified. (shrink)

About 6% of women in the world live in countries that ban all abortions, and 34% in countries that only allow abortion to preserve maternal life or health. In the USA, over the last decades—even before Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the federal right to abortion—various states have sought to restrict abortion access. Often times, this legislation has been advanced based on legislators’ personal moral values. At the bedside, in contrast, provision of abortion (...) care should adhere to the normative principles of medical ethics and reproductive justice, centreing patients and their individual reproductive intentions and desires. Abortion regulations, through their influence on patients and providers, may facilitate or impede such ethical care at the bedside. In this paper, we present a framework to model how abortion legislation should fit into the patient–provider relationship and to clarify the dynamics by which legislation may affect healthcare encounters. Our proposed framework serves as a tool to analyse the ethical impact of abortion regulations. We propose a model for assessing abortion policies based not on legislators’ or advocates’ individual moral claims, but on the shared, normative framework of clinical medical ethics. Through contrasting case studies, we demonstrate how a robust normative ethical framework can recentre patients and their reproductive needs. Our model is one way to account for—and safeguard—patients’ diverse viewpoints and needs in the development of abortion policy, and it can serve to ground narratives for advocacy by healthcare workers and their professional organisations. (shrink)

In the wake of the Supreme Court Decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Minkoff, Vullikanti, and Marshall (2024) argue that the unraveling of the constitutional right to abortion t...

This article considers challenges facing the pro-life movement after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022). It identifies four questions the movement must face: (1) whether to adopt a combative or conciliatory rhetorical stance; (2) how to prioritize new legislative goals; (3) how to define the limits of acceptable compromise; and (4) how to respond to Americans with ambivalent attitudes toward abortion. The article argues that each of these issues could precipitate serious division in the pro-life (...) movement that will impact likelihood of future success. (shrink)

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, legal commentators and bioethicists asked whether other constitutional rights were on the chopping block (Coh...

In their article, Romanis and Adkins delineate pregnancy loss and procreative loss to show that the former is possible without the latter, as in the case of artificial amnion and placenta technology.1 Here, we are interested in examining the reverse—procreative loss without pregnancy loss—to further tease apart these two types of loss. We discuss two cases: being forced to continue a pregnancy despite fetal demise due to abortion restrictions and choosing to selectively reduce a multifetal pregnancy. Our analysis buttresses the (...) authors’ conclusion: due to our fetal-centric conception of pregnancy, we are only able to value pregnancy instrumentally (ie, for the fetus), not intrinsically. Understanding pregnancy as an embodied state rather than a process that not only acknowledges the intrinsic value of pregnancy for pregnant people but also encourages society to intrinsically value pregnant people is important. In 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States removed the constitutional right to an abortion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, shifting the responsibility of determining abortion regulations to individual US states.2 Due to the Dobbs decision, there …. (shrink)

In England, Wales and Scotland, the vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester of pregnancy. In 2009, for example, 91% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation for women resident in England and Wales. 1 Early abortion opens up the opportunity for a woman to have a medical abortion rather than a surgical abortion. Medical abortion is considered to be less invasive and less expensive than surgical abortion, and is increasingly becoming the preferred method. (...) 1 The proportion of medical abortions to surgical abortions has doubled in the last five years with 52% of abortions being medical abortions under 9 weeks gestation in 2009. A medical abortion typically involves taking mifepristone to block the hormones that help a pregnancy to continue, and then later on misoprostol, which makes the womb expel the embryo/fetus, usually within 4–6 h. Current legislation requires that both sets of drugs are administered in an NHS hospital or approved place, but women can go home after taking the second dose of drugs to complete the abortion. There has long been disagreement between the Department of Health and the British Pregnancy Advisory Services about what constitutes ‘any treatment for the termination of pregnancy’ under the Abortion Act 1967, specifically whether a woman taking the second set of drugs is considered to be undergoing the ‘treatment’ and is therefore required to be present in premises permitted under the Act. At the end of 2010, BPAS went to the High Court to challenge the Department of Health's view that the legislation requires women to take both sets of drugs in an approved place. BPAS argued that ‘treatment’ stops at the point of prescription and women should be able to go home, …. (shrink)

While the 2022 Supreme Court of the United States decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization may bring the contingent rights of pregnant people to refuse interventions into sharper foc...

Howard Minkoff, Raaga Unmesha Vullikanti and Mary Faith Marshall argue that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization not only undermines the right to abortion b...

This paper offers a qualified defence of physician non-compliance with antiabortion legislation in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The paper examines two ethically troubling trends of post-Dobbs legislation: narrow and vague maternal health exemption clauses and mandatory reporting of miscarriages in jurisdictions where patients may criminal prosecution for medically induced abortions. It then examines and defends a professional obligation on the part of physicians to comply (...) with the law. This obligation, however, is defeasible. The paper then argues that physicians’ obligations to comply with the law is defeated when the law is illegitimate and following the law would constitute bad medical practice. Finally, it argues that the ethically troubling trends in post-Dobbs antiabortion legislation may meet these criteria. (shrink)

ABSTRACT:This essay explores how bioethics as a field, rather than as a collection of individual efforts by bioethicists working within it, can inform deliberation on matters of bioethical import that, for better or worse, are in the hands of civic processes. It is motivated by the repeal of a constitutional protection of abortion access in the Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, which effectively returned abortion regulations to states rather than setting a baseline federal (...) protection of abortion access up to fetal viability. Given the outsized role of local legislators in shaping health-care policy through legislation, about abortion as well as other health topics, the author proposes foundational bioethical education for legislators and considers two potential models for such education: one that operates on a clinical ethics consultation model, and one that mirrors bioethical coursework taught in traditional academic settings but modified for a legislator audience. Although both models present notable challenges requiring further conceptualization and problem-solving, overcoming these hurdles would enable bioethics to provide a service to civic learning and placemaking that would complement advocacy or lobbying efforts by individual bioethicists. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Editors' Introduction to the Special Issue on the Translational Work of BioethicsElizabeth Lanphier and Larry R. ChurchillRecent essays in Perspectives and Biology and Medicine, including "Can Clinical Ethics Survive Climate Change" by Andrew Jameton and Jessica Pierce and "Ethical Maxims for a Marginally Inhabitable Planet" by David Schenck and Larry R. Churchill, both appearing in the Autumn 2021 issue, inspired conversations between us, among our colleagues, and with various (...) contributors to this symposium. We asked of ourselves and each other: where can, should, or must bioethics as a field go to make what bioethicists know and publish about in the academic literature relevant to public policy decisions, health and technological innovation, and a general public? In other words, where do we, practically speaking, go with our bioethical insights and discoveries to make a tangible impact on issues like climate change—though that is only one of the various topics that the authors in this symposium tackle.This translational work of connecting scholarly innovation back to overt practical innovation is often peripheral to academic bioethics. It is not the work the academy typically recognizes in its credit system. Yet this translational work is becoming a critical, central duty of bioethics for the 21st century, while the kinds of work the academy most valorizes may be the least important at this time. In particular, the need for translational initiatives is increasingly evident as pandemics linger into a new normal, the long history and ongoing impacts of racism become even more evident at institutional levels, and the devastating health implications of global warming emerge. [End Page 515]Bioethicists function in privileged proximity to the deleterious effects of failed health and social policy, as well the interplay between seemingly personal health choices, such as those related to diet or lifestyle, and inequitable conditions that impact the options available to individuals and groups. We are increasingly distressed by what we see from this privileged window into health. The COVID-19 pandemic has made preexisting social and policy inequities impacting health impossible to ignore. At the same time, the patterns of carbon pollution portend health crises of unprecedent severity and magnitude in the near future—and will likely deepen inequities and disparities already occurring between those most contributing to, and those most harmed by, climate change.As a field, bioethics has, since its start, been at the intersection of theory and practice. But it is not sufficient for the field to reside passively at this crossroads. The field must be constantly innovating new byways and highways, new offshoots from existing pathways and connector roads between them, that build out both the theory and practice of bioethics in a mutually innovative relationship to each other. Bioethics does not make sense without attention to the real-world practices and the lived realities of health and care. The practical engagement is what deepens and enriches theory, in ways that are more responsive to the real world in which bioethicists toil. But it also is not enough to merely contribute to the body of bioethics scholarship. The translational bioethics we envision is also about using novel theories and concepts to actively shape practices and realities; it is a bioethics in which theory and practices mutually influence each other, each reaching out to generate and change the other.This collection of essays, drawn from a diverse number of scholars, offers several promising paths forward. The essays were written in the spring of 2022, two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, two years after the murder of George Floyd and international attention to the movement for Black lives, and for the most part in the weeks just prior to a set of US Supreme Court decisions with enormous impacts on health, including the June 24 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and the June 30 West Virginia v. EPA decisions.The authors are diverse in age, spheres of work, discipline, sex, race, and ethnicity. They expand our vision for what bioethics can and should be. While we have grouped the essays by subject matter, most of the pieces speak to the field as a whole and invite cross-fertilization. We hope readers will find new ideas, old ideas... (shrink)

The Supreme Court’s reversal of the right to abortion has significantly changed reproductive rights in the United States, and adversely affected the lives of potentially pregnant persons. The political fragility of the privacy right to abortion also raises questions about the practice and epistemic rules of American constitutionalism itself. In this essay, I situate the history of privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause in the tradition of legal reasoning. With Ludwig Wittgenstein’s On Certainty, I argue that the majority (...) in Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) departs from this tradition. The upshot of this departure is that we now have a new interpretive language game battling a long established language game of interpretation–battling, that is, a constitutional tradition–in a contest to redefine how disagreement is transacted among justices and between the people and their government. (shrink)

SummarySon preference has been considered as a determinant of women's risk of intimate partner violence experience in India, although quantitative evidence from large nationally representative studies testing this relationship is limited. This study examines the association between husband's son preference, sex composition of children and risk of physical and sexual IPV victimization among wives. Information was collected for 26,284 couples in the nationally representative 2005–2006 National Family Health Survey of India. The exposures were husband's son preference measured as husband's (...) desire for one or more sons greater than the number of daughters and sex composition of the household: only sons, only daughters and mixed. Outcome included past year physical and/or sexual IPV. The results showed that husband's reported son preference and sex composition of children were not associated with risk for IPV victimization in the models adjusted for socio-demographic factors. The findings from this first population-based study of socio-cultural norms around son preference and married Indian women's risk for IPV victimization indicate that cultural preference for sons does not influence women's risk for IPV victimization. (shrink)

Residency selection is a challenging process for medical students, one further complicated in the USA by the recentDobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization(Dobbs) decision over-ruling the federal right to abortion. We surveyed medical students to examine howDobbsis influencing the ideological, personal and professional factors they must reconcile when choosing where and how to complete residency.Between 6 August and 22 October 2022, third-year and fourth-year US medical students applying to US residency programmes were surveyed through social media (...) and direct outreach to medical schools. Analysis of quantitative and qualitative data from 494 responses was performed to assess downstream effects ofDobbson residency applicants’ family, health and career choices.Most respondents said changes in abortion access would likely or very likely influence their decision regarding location of considered residency programme (76.9%), where to start a family (72.2%) and contraceptive planning for them or their partner (57.9%). Cis-gender females were more influenced byDobbsregarding where (5 (4, 5) p<0.001) and when (3 (3, 5) p<0.001) to start a family. In qualitative responses, medical trainees highlighted the importance of abortion access for their patients, themselves and their loved ones.Medical trainees are incorporating state abortion access into their residency programme choices. Future physicians care about both the quality of care they will be able to provide and their own health. For personal and professional reasons, reproductive healthcare access is now a key factor in residency match decisions. (shrink)

This article focuses on a resonant debate initiated by the publication of Judith Jarvis Thomson’s groundbreaking article “On Defense of Abortion” in 1971. It is my contention that philosophers who argued against Thomson based on what has come to be called the “Responsibility Objection” did not fully examine the gender assumptions embedded in their logic. Rather than attempt to prove the flaw in the Responsibility Objection directly, I demonstrate it by applying the same logic used to discuss women’s responsibilities (...) to men to prove that it also supports forcing men to get a vasectomy. What I show is that the Responsibility Objection, when no longer clothed in a set of gendered assumptions, is not logically convincing. Further, given that the Responsibility Objection supports the logic the U.S. Supreme Court recently relied on in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health in overruling Roe vs. Wade, the examination of the flaws in this logic is timely and important. (shrink)

SummarySon preference has been considered as a determinant of women's risk of intimate partner violence experience in India, although quantitative evidence from large nationally representative studies testing this relationship is limited. This study examines the association between husband's son preference, sex composition of children and risk of physical and sexual IPV victimization among wives. Information was collected for 26,284 couples in the nationally representative 2005–2006 National Family Health Survey of India. The exposures were husband's son preference measured as husband's (...) desire for one or more sons greater than the number of daughters and sex composition of the household: only sons, only daughters and mixed. Outcome included past year physical and/or sexual IPV. The results showed that husband's reported son preference and sex composition of children were not associated with risk for IPV victimization in the models adjusted for socio-demographic factors. The findings from this first population-based study of socio-cultural norms around son preference and married Indian women's risk for IPV victimization indicate that cultural preference for sons does not influence women's risk for IPV victimization. (shrink)

Female genital mutilation generates passionate argument about child abuse and the limits of cultural independence. The Sudanese Women's Rights Group (SWRG), which is based in the United Kingdom (UK) issued a press release expressing grave concern about the Sudanese government's intention to legalise female genital mutilation (circumcision) (Sudanese Women's Rights Group press release Legalisation of female circumcision in Sudan, 18 June 2002). The Sudanese Ministry of Religious Affairs and Endowment, together with an Islamic university, held a workshop entitled Towards the (...) Legalisation of Female Circumcision & Establishment of Training Centers for Operators (excisors). It recommended that female circumcision should be legalised, awareness about its importance in society should be raised, and the Islamic University should establish centres all over the country for training practitioners of female circumcision. The SWRG is concerned about the strong support for the recommendations among government officials, in a country where 89% of women have been mutilated.1 The Sudanese government's actions came just a few months before female genital mutilation was rejected at a 190 country strong world summit.2 The summit agreed that health care services must “conform to basic human rights and fundamental freedoms”, a provision designed to prevent female genital mutilation. Around the same time the American embassy in Nairobi said that Somali refugees who had rushed to circumcise their daughters before being moved to the US would probably be barred from emigrating.3 The statement prompted fierce debate, and the US later backtracked.4 Recent debate in the UK focused on taking young girls abroad for mutilation. Nothing in UK law specifically prohibits families from taking daughters abroad for female genital mutilation, but doctors must consider what action they should take to protect a child at risk of being mutilated. The government is exploring ways to strengthen the Prohibition of Female …. (shrink)

The article examines the social dimensions of poverty in the context of gender, dalit, tribal and Muslim minorities in the country. Reviewing the process of globalisation in the country, it notes that the largest section of workers continue to work in the unorganised sector. The shifting of global capital to the South and particularly to India has increased opportunities for women to work in the garment export industry. Characterised by low pay and poor working conditions, the industry exploits women. The (...) fear of job loss has led to new forms of resistance by women workers not only at the workplace but within the community linking with social movements for protection and advancement. Small and marginal farmers including women agricultural workers are impacted by global markets leading to destruction of rural livelihoods. Dalit women have demonstrated how to create household food security by internalising inputs and creating alternative markets. Policy planners need to learn from these experiences and upscale at a national level. Regenerating commons and promoting non-chemical agriculture are other means to restore ecological balance and economic health of the agriculture sector. Tribal, dalit and Muslim minority socio-economic rights are eroded further due to the process of globalisation. To move towards more inclusive growth, public spending on education and health has to increase. Responding to people's movements the state needs to implement pro-people policies and programmes. Mobilising women into SHGs is seen as a panacea to ensure women's development. Currently, it has created a debt burden on women. An alternative agenda for empowerment is outlined for action. (shrink)

In late 2005, the General Medical Council carried out several consultations. In the review of procedures for sick doctors were proposals to strengthen powers to monitor doctors and plans to introduce unannounced drug testing of doctors whose behaviour raised concerns.1 The GMC consultation on the strategic options for undergraduate medical education considered how education is changing in the light of social and clinical demands. It focused, in part, on developing guidance on medical students’ health and conduct and a proposed (...) national registration system for medical students.2 The most significant consultation in terms of medical ethics was the GMC’s review of Good Medical Practice – its main ethical guidance for doctors.3 The GMC’s aim was to re-define practical and attainable modern standards. A proposed draft emphasised partnership in the doctor-patient relationship, human rights, and doctors’ obligations and responsibilities towards children—all of which are issues increasingly significant in medicine. The consultation also opened up discussion on how far the GMC should be concerned about doctors’ behaviour in their private lives. Should it be concerned, for example, about clinically successful consultants being obsessed with hardcore pornography or having affairs with very young women?4 Questions were also posed about how far doctors can exercise a conscientious objection. Should they be able to refuse to refer pregnant women for abortions because they themselves consider it wrong?5 Other potentially contentious issues questioned the extent to which doctors have rights to protect themselves against risks from patients. British Medical Association policy, dating from the era when HIV first began to be diagnosed, stated that it is unethical to withhold treatment solely because a patient’s condition poses risks to doctors’ health. At the time it was adopted, this policy was intended to be anti-discriminatory as HIV patients were already stigmatised. Doctors …. (shrink)

This paper utilizes the Jesus Seminar Database in order to construct a profile of Jesus's words and deeds concerning women-as far as this can be constructed from the biblical evidence. The thesis is that those gospel stories that are thought to be fairly reliable historically and which include women as major characters capture the authentically historical Jesus. Furthermore, the stories that concern women-starting with the unmarried pregnant woman Mary and ending with a woman's vision of the resurrected Lord-when set down (...) together, provide the essential and complete Gospel. (shrink)

Despite an abundance of theoretical literature on virtue ethics in nursing and health care, very little research has been carried out to support or refute the claims made. One such claim is that ethical nursing is what happens when a good nurse does the right thing. The purpose of this descriptive, qualitative study was therefore to examine nurses’ perceptions of what it means to be a good nurse and to do the right thing. Fifty-three nurses responded to two open-ended (...) questions: (1) a good nurse is one who...; and (2) how does a nurse go about doing the right thing? Three hundred and thirty-one data units were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Seven categories emerged: personal characteristics, professional characteristics, patient centredness, advocacy, competence, critical thinking and patient care. Participants viewed ethical nursing as a complex endeavour in which a variety of decision-making frameworks are used. Consistent with virtue ethics, high value was placed on both intuitive and analytical personal attributes that nurses bring into nursing by virtue of the persons they are. Further investigation is needed to determine just who the ‘good nurse’ is, and the nursing practice and education implications associated with this concept. (shrink)

Purpose. Objectives of the study are as follows: to remove the reduction of women to a metaphysical subject, to the "castrated Other" through the correlation of postmodern strategies and gender medicine; to institutionalize gender medicine as knowledge and practical activities that improve the quality and span of life of women based on the methodological application of deconstruction, complementarity, differance, "double writing", X-subject treatment and biomedical innovations; the perspective of gender medicine development is the implementation of the concept of "sovereign writing" (...) of postmodern in individual treatment of a person. Theoretical basis. Shock value of the title means farewell to metaphysics in the complex of its derived concepts. The author criticizes the abstract, reduced, marginalized, deviant subject of classical metaphysics and its continuation in psychoanalysis, explores the correlation of postmodern philosophy strategies and biomedical innovations. The allusion to the masterpiece of world cinematography Pasolini’s "Ciao maschio" corresponds to the rhizomatic stylistics of the postmodern. Originality. After feminist transgressions, gender constructivism postmodern philosophy demonstrates a new subject and a new methodology, which formed gender medicine. Differance, distinction, complementarity, X-subject of treatment, chiasmatic movement, "double writing", "sovereign writing" organically turned over and reconstructed modern medicine in gender, biochemical, and hormonal innovative variations. Conclusions. 1. Based on the philosophy and biomedical innovations, a new direction has grown – gender medicine, which has removed the reduction of women to a metaphysical subject, "castrated Other", which has improved the quality of women’s health and span of life. 2. Gender medicine in organic combination with the strategies of deconstruction, complementarity, differance, distinction as hormonal distinction, "double writing" as a "dual protocol" of treatment for the same diseases of men and women, the treatment of X-subject turned out to be "new wisdom", which improves the quality of health and span of life in everyday practice. 3. The prospect of the gender medicine’s development is in the implementation of the "sovereign writing" as an individual treatment of a specific person. (shrink)