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

Dobbs appears more extreme when juxtaposed against Roe’s hidden history. Justice Blackmun was the author of Roe, but the opinion was the product of a remarkable collaboration that incorporated the suggestions of many Justices. Thus, Roe’s medical framing embodied the vision of the Court as a whole, not one individual.

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.

Abortion stories have always played a powerful role in advancing women’s rights. In the abortion sphere particularly, the personal is political. Following the Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, abortion politics, and abortion storytelling, take on an even deeper political role in challenging the bloodless judicial language of Dobbs with the lived experience of women.

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.

This article argues that state laws banning abortions for disability violate reproductive justice for parents with disabilities. These bans deprive people with disabilities of choices that may be important to their possibilities of becoming parents, including possibilities for abortion of pregnancies that have become risky to continue. Far from protecting disability civil rights, these state law bans restrict the abilities of people with disabilities to choose to have children and to parent.

The Dobbs decision will directly affect patients and reproductive rights; it will also impact patients indirectly in many ways, one of which will be changes in the physician workforce through its impact on graduate medical education. Current residency accreditation standards require training in all forms of contraception in addition to training in the provision of abortion. State bans on abortions may diminish access to training as approximately half of obstetrics and gynecology residency programs are in states with significant abortion restrictions. The Dobbs decision creates numerous hurdles for trainees and their programs. Trainees in restrictive states will have to travel to learn in a different program in a protective state. As training opportunities diminish, potentially leading to a decline in clinical skills, knowledge, and experience in the provision of abortion, the rate of complications and maternal mortality are likely to rise. This will likely have a disproportionately negative effect on preexisting disparities in reproductive health fueled by a longstanding history of systemic racism and inequities. This work aims to both define the looming problem in abortion training created by Dobbs and propose solutions to ensure that an adequate workforce is available in the future to serve patient needs.

In light of a history of categorical exclusion, it is critical that pregnant people are included in research to help improve the knowledge base and interventions needed to address public health. Yet the volatile legal landscape around reproductive rights in the United States threatens to undue recent progress made toward the greater inclusion of pregnant people in research. We offer ethical and practical guidance for researchers, sponsors, and institutional review boards to take specific steps to minimize legal risks and ensure the ethical conduct of research with pregnant people in an evolving legal environment.

Post-Dobbs abortion restrictions impact access and choice in the context of reproductive genetic medicine, raising serious reproductive justice concerns. The consequences of these restrictions are particularly acute and far-reaching for individuals with genetic conditions and their families.

This article explores the impact of Dobbs on access to assisted reproductive technologies. Clinical aspects of IVF, including embryo discard and cryopreservation, preimplantation genetic testing, and selective reduction of multiple pregnancy are potentially jeopardized by a new legal landscape that protects embryos over the interest of infertility patients.

This article argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs is likely to impact medical decision-making by pregnant patients in a variety of contexts. Of particular concern are situations where a patient declines treatment recommended for its potential benefit to the fetus and situations where treatment is withheld due to potential risk to the fetus. The Court’s elevation of fetal interests, combined with a history of courts using abortion jurisprudence to guide their reasoning in compelled treatment cases, means that Dobbs has the potential to limit patient autonomy in a wide array of clinical settings. The article calls on professional medical associations to issue ethical guidance affirming the duty to respect the medical self-determination of pregnant patients.

Low-income women and, disproportionately low-income women of color seeking reproductive and pregnancy care are increasingly subject to what this article terms carceral care – care compromised by its’ proximity to punishment systems. This article identifies the legal and health care practice mechanisms leading to carceral care and proposes solutions designed to stop criminalization at the bedside.

The end of Roe v. Wade has significant implications for the autonomy of pregnant patients at the end of life. At least thirty states restrict the choice to withhold/withdraw life-sustaining treatments from pregnant patients without decisional capacity, invalidating prior advance directives and prohibiting others from choosing these options for the patient. Many restrictions are based on the Roe framework, applying after “viability” or similar considerations of fetal development or prospect for live birth. Scholars have also relied on the abortion framework, arguing that the restrictions impose an undue burden. The end of Roe will free states from having to craft limited restrictions designed to work around prior abortion jurisprudence. Similarly, advocates will no longer be able to draw support from the abortion framework, forcing them to rely instead on cases supporting rights to autonomy/bodily integrity in medical decision-making.

The overturn of Roe v. Wade has resulted in fewer rights and resources for people seeking abortion care, particularly in the South. The Hyde Amendment has historically restricted abortion access for those enrolled in Medicaid. We argue here that its guarantees of minimum abortion coverage should be leveraged to offset harms where possible.

Punitive policy responses to substance use and to abortion care constitute direct attacks on personal liberty and bodily autonomy. In this article, we leverage the concept of “syndemics” to anticipate how the already synergistic stigmas against people who use drugs and people who seek abortion services will be further compounded the Dobbs decision.

This article explores the role of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in drug approval and restrictions to mifepristone access in the context of historical regulation and current litigation.

While sexual violence should not be the prerequisite for legal abortion, expanding definitions of abuse to include reproductive coercion can open avenues of access to abortion following the Dobbs decision. Understanding the increased danger and compounding challenges of intimate partner violence can inform legislative initiatives, healthcare responses, and movements for reproductive justice.

Elected prosecutors have pledged not to enforce abortion laws, in response to state-level abortion bans. For their pledges to be meaningful, prosecutors must exercise their discretion in cases of individuals who face legal risk, including people who help others self-manage their abortions. With a harm-reduction approach to improving abortion access, prosecutors should aim to reduce abortion helpers’ involvement with the criminal justice system.

The Dobbs opinion emphasizes that the state’s interest in the fetus extends to “all stages of development.” This essay briefly explores whether state legislators, agencies, and courts could use the “all stages of development” language to expand reproductive surveillance by using novel developments in consumer health technologies to augment those efforts.