A Short Study of the Immediate Impact of the Dobbs v Jackson Decision in the United States of America
Debjani Dutta
Dr. Debjani Dutta, Independent Researcher, Munich, Germany.
Manuscript received on 08 October 2025 | First Revised Manuscript received on 15 October 2025 | Second Revised Manuscript received on 21 February 2026 | Manuscript Accepted on 15 March 2026 | Manuscript published on 30 March 2026 | PP: 32-37 | Volume-5 Issue-3, March 2026 | Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijssl.B122005021225 | DOI: 10.54105/ijssl.B1220.05030326
Open Access | Ethics and Policies | Cite | Zenodo | OJS | Indexing and Abstracting
© The Authors. Published by Lattice Science Publication (LSP). This is an open-access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Abstract: This study examines the immediate legal, social, and medical repercussions of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). By removing federal constitutional protection for abortion and returning regulatory power to individual states, the Court’s ruling redefined reproductive rights in the United States. The paper outlines the legal rationale of the majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, which rejected abortion as a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment, emphasising that it was not “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” It criticizes the Court’s application of stare decisis and its narrow historical interpretation, arguing that the decision disregarded nearly fifty years of established precedent and scientific evidence submitted through amicus briefs by major medical organisations. The essay situates Dobbs within broader political and social contexts, analyzing public opinion polls, the role of “trigger laws” across 26 states, and the growing disparities in healthcare access. Drawing on contemporary reportage and academic commentary, the aim is to demonstrate how the ruling has exacerbated maternal mortality rates, criminalized medical professionals, and disproportionately harmed marginalized women, discriminating on the lines of color and socioeconomic status. The discussion explores global implications, emphasising how Dobbs undermines international reproductive rights recognised by the World Health Organisation. The paper concludes by ascertaining how the Dobbs decision represents a regressive turn in American constitutional and healthcare jurisprudence. It shows how the decision restricts not only reproductive autonomy but also destabilises the ethics of medicine, transparent data gathering processes, and patient care.
Keywords: Reproductive Rights, Dobbs v. Jackson, Constitutional Law, Judicial Precedent, Maternal Health.
Scope of the Article: Sociology