Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Amicus Brief in Support of Pro-Life Obsetetricians and Gynecologists on Behalf of Right to Life of Michigan and the National Catholic Bioethics Center.
The Great Lakes Justice Center had the privilege of representing Right to Life of Michigan and the National Catholic Bioethics Center in this Amicus Brief to the United States Supreme Court regarding Pro-Life issues.
Full Case Name: Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al.
File No.: 19-1392
Court: United States Supreme Court
Great Lakes Justice Center Role: Amicus Brief
Date: July 20, 2020
The Great Lakes Justice Center today announced the filing of this Amicus Brief with the United States Supreme Court.
States have the right to prohibit pre-viability abortion to protect women’s health, the dignity of preborn children, and the integrity of the medical profession. Given the advancements in medicine and technology, this Court should re-examine and clarify the viability standard set by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 163-65 (1973). The Fifth Circuit held: “States may regulate abortion procedures prior to viability so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the women’s right, but they may not ban abortions. The law at issue is a ban.” Pet. App. at 2a. Mississippi’s law, however, is not a ban—it is a limit, allowing abortion in emergency cases and upon diagnosis of severe fetal abnormality.
The Supreme Court has recognized that a “state’s interest in protecting unborn life can justify a pre-viability restriction on abortion.” Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007). Here, the interests in the health of the pregnant mother, the humanity of the pre-born child, and the integrity of the medical profession allow the state to limit unnecessary and inhumane abortion practices. This Court in Roe and its progenitor precedents incorrectly concluded that the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment included a liberty interest in the right to abort an unborn child as part of one’s personal autonomy. Not a single word uttered or written, in the promulgation of the Fourteenth Amendment, even remotely suggests that the Amendment includes a right to abortion. Undeniably, it is clear from the historical discussion that the authors of the Amendment never contemplated including such a diabolical entitlement. Indeed, judicially contriving such a liberty interest destabilizes representative constitutional governance because it exceeds the scope of the Judicial Power and fails to adequately address the profound government interest in protecting unborn human life. Furthermore, as four Justices of this Court just recognized, abortionists and abortion clinics, who profit from the sale of abortion, do not have standing to challenge a law affecting women and pre-born children. June Med. Servs. L. L. C. v. Russo, No. 18-1323, 2020 WL 3492640 (U.S. June 29, 2020).
Considering the advancements in medical science over the past forty years and the legal instability of the viability standard set forth in Roe, the Great Lakes Justice Center is requesting that the Court should grant certiorari and reverse the decision of the Fifth Circuit.