Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization – Amicus Brief
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Near-categorical bans on abortions will have a significant, real, and negative impact on the health of pregnant individuals.
The worst such impacts will be borne by marginalized groups, including people living in economic poverty and by Black, Indigenous, and people of color. These are the very groups whose health the law should protect. Banning abortion does the opposite.
In-country after country, abortion bans have not led to a decrease in the number of abortions, but rather an increase in the number of unsafe abortions—especially affecting people of limited means.
These risks are neither theoretical nor conjectural. In countries across the world, including Romania, South Africa, El Salvador, and Ecuador, there is a statistical relationship between the imposition of restrictive abortion legislation and increases in maternal mortality and morbidity. The lesson for this case is clear: If an abortion ban like H.B. 1510 is upheld, more women in Mississippi are likely to die.
Consistent with these findings, countries around the world allow abortion on broad grounds.
Amicus briefs submitted in support of Petitioners claim that most countries ban or severely restrict abortion. That assertion distorts reality. In fact, a strong majority of women of reproductive age—approximately 60%—live in countries where abortion is available upon request or otherwise broadly available on a variety of social, economic, and health grounds.
By contrast, just a handful of countries, representing 5% of women of reproductive age, ban abortion without exception. Mississippi’s H.B. 1510 is an unmistakable step in this latter direction, away from the global norm and towards this small minority position.
Furthermore, where only economically developed or highly developed countries are considered, an even more robust consensus emerges. Of the 36 highly developed countries, 34 offer abortion on broadly available grounds. A significant number of nations offer abortions free of charge to low-income pregnant individuals.
International law coheres with these trends in comparative law. Contrary to amicus briefs submitted supporting Petitioners, international human rights law recognizes the well-known risks created by restrictive abortion legislation and requires states to ensure abortion access.
Access to safe and lawful abortion services is firmly rooted in the rights to life; to non-discrimination; to be free from torture, cruel, and degrading treatment; and to privacy. These rights are recognized in international human rights treaties ratified by the United States, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention Against Torture. The United States cannot, given its international obligations, enact legislation that transgresses these commitments. Banning abortion clearly does so.