The United States Supreme Court’s recent controversial ruling in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case has set a new trajectory for reproductive rights discourse in the country, notably signaling a possible erosion of the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.
The stakes of Dobbs extend beyond the implications for the in vitro fertilization (IVF) industry. The details of the case reveal an unsettling conclusion: under the lens of this new legal reconfiguration, deceased individuals can arguably possess greater rights regarding their bodies than women who might get pregnant.
The central narrative of Dobbs is a rejection of women’s right to choose, effectively promoting the idea of life beginning at conception. The case challenges IVF procedures, given the necessity in most instances for the disposal of excess fertilized eggs, thereby contradicting this life-at-conception notion.
In the wake of this ruling, Republicans in support of the decision are striving to find balance between backing Dobbs and endorsing IVF procedures. However, the implications reach much further. If every embryo is considered a human life, a legal hurdle emerges for IVF doctors and the women they serve, signaling a potential devaluation of women’s rights over their bodies and lives.
An analytical look at Tonja Jacobi’s column, a professor of law known for her insights on Supreme Court judicial behavior, clearly elucidates this complex issue. Jacobi warns that Dobbs’ impact could extend beyond reproductive rights, possibly hindering other critical rights involving contraceptives and marital freedoms, such as gay and interracial marriage.
- For instance, Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion of Dobbs presents a dichotomy between those who believe life begins at conception and those upholding women’s fundamental rights over their bodies. This perceived conflict in legal and ethical perspectives does not consider whether states or the federal government have the right to force women to experience pregnancy and birth against their will.
The issue doesn’t stop with the question of life beginning at conception. The challenge lies in deciding what to do with that life. Should the responsibility be solely transferred to women, potentially incurring significant burden and risk?
Interestingly, this question of forcing significant burdens on one individual to save another has rarely ever been affirmed in court proceedings outside the context of abortion. Yet, now, this ethical question is under the spotlight.
An example that illustrates this issue is the famous “trolley problem” presented to first-year law students. It poses a similar ethical dilemma: is it justifiable to risk one person’s life to save others? This problem draws on the legal distinction between an act and an omission, emphasising the subsequent implications thy have on the issue of forced pregnancy.
However, Dobbs’ narrative takes this issue further, questioning whether people are ethically required to risk their lives for others. Even when our actions directly cause a risk to another person’s life, the law does not force us to mitigate the threat at the cost of endangering ourselves. Moreover, even after death, people have the right to refuse organ donations, thereby enhancing our rights even posthumously.
By contrast, the impending reality for many women is facing forced pregnancies that could create significant health risks. In light of Dobbs, certain states have already set precedents by denying women life-saving or health-preserving pregnancy termination services. In effect, these practices construct fetuses as beings with rights exceeding those of all other humans: the ability to impose health risks, or even death, onto others.
The IVF industry is just one of the foremost fields where Dobbs’ severe logic is manifesting. However, its implications go much further. Courtesy of Dobbs, deceased individuals and embryos arguably possess more control over their bodies than current US law affords to women of reproductive age. This is merely the starting line of the repercussions, with great shifts in the national discourse on reproductive health and rights on the horizon.
For detailed case information, please refer to LePage v. Ctr. for Reprod. Med., P.C., Ala., 2022-0515, 2/16/24.