“Returning” Abortion to “the People and Their Elected Representatives”: Chaos, Conflict and Access in Wisconsin in the Aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
On 24 June 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), putting an end to nearly fifty years of constitutional protection for abortion rights. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the opinio...
Enregistré dans:
| Dans: | URI:https://journals.openedition.org/ilcea, |
|---|---|
| Auteur principal: | |
| Format: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Publié: |
ILCEA
2024
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| id |
openedition-oai:revues.org:ilcea_20162 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
openedition |
| spelling |
openedition-oai:revues.org:ilcea_20162 https://doi.org/10.4000/11prg urn:doi:10.4000/11prg en https://journals.openedition.org/ilcea/20162 2024-05-23T02:00:00Z info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess article info:eu-repo/semantics/article urn:handle:20.500.13089/11prg https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ “Returning” Abortion to “the People and Their Elected Representatives”: Chaos, Conflict and Access in Wisconsin in the Aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ILCEA UGA Éditions - Université Grenoble Alpes info:eu-repo/semantics/reference/issn/2101-0609 info:eu-repo/semantics/reference/issn/1639-6073 URI:https://journals.openedition.org/ilcea Légier, Anne avortement Wisconsin conflits de souveraineté Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion Wisconsin conflicting sovereignties Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization On 24 June 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), putting an end to nearly fifty years of constitutional protection for abortion rights. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the opinion for the Court, claimed that previous rulings on abortion had failed to “bring about the permanent resolution of a rancorous national controversy”, and that the “the authority to regulate abortion” was now “returned to the people and their elected representatives”. One of the central ideas of the ruling was thus that it would appease preexisting tensions and reduce confusion by allowing states and their people to better represent their values in their state laws. This paper will argue that it did no such thing and instead unleashed a wave of confusing cases involving competing and sometimes conflicting sources of power at different levels of government. To do so, it will focus on a specific state—Wisconsin—where abortions were unavailable for fifteen months because different sources of legal authority disagreed on which law should apply Le 24 juin 2022, la Cour suprême des États‑Unis mit fin à près d’un demi‑siècle de protection constitutionnelle pour le droit à l’avortement en renversant les arrêts Roe v. Wade (1973) et Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Dans l’arrêt Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, le juge Samuel Alito, chargé de la rédaction pour la majorité de la Cour, affirma que puisque la jurisprudence n’avait pas réussi « à mettre un terme à une amère controverse nationale », l’autorité en matière d’avortement devait être « rendue au peuple et ses représentants élus ». Au cœur de l’arrêt se trouvait donc l’idée qu’il apaiserait les tensions et réduirait les incertitudes caractéristiques du débat sur l’avortement en autorisant les États fédérés et leurs habitants à adopter des lois locales qui reflèteraient mieux leurs valeurs. Or, il n’en est rien : l’arrêt est à l’origine d’une vague d’affaires complexes, soulevant des conflits de souveraineté et impliquant des sources de pouvoir à l’échelle fédérale et à celle des États fédérés. Afin de mettre en lumière ces tensions, l’article se concentrera sur un État particulier, celui du Wisconsin, dans lequel, à la suite d’un désaccord entre différentes sources de pouvoir au sujet de la loi qui devrait s’appliquer, l’accès à l’avortement fut suspendu pendant quinze mois. |
| collection |
OpenEdition Journal |
| language |
Anglais |
| format |
Article ou chapitre numérique |
| building |
0/Bibliothèque numérique/ 1/Bibliothèque numérique/OpenEdition Journals/ |
| topic |
avortement Wisconsin conflits de souveraineté Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion Wisconsin conflicting sovereignties Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization |
| spellingShingle |
avortement Wisconsin conflits de souveraineté Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion Wisconsin conflicting sovereignties Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Légier, Anne “Returning” Abortion to “the People and Their Elected Representatives”: Chaos, Conflict and Access in Wisconsin in the Aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization |
| description |
On 24 June 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), putting an end to nearly fifty years of constitutional protection for abortion rights. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the opinion for the Court, claimed that previous rulings on abortion had failed to “bring about the permanent resolution of a rancorous national controversy”, and that the “the authority to regulate abortion” was now “returned to the people and their elected representatives”. One of the central ideas of the ruling was thus that it would appease preexisting tensions and reduce confusion by allowing states and their people to better represent their values in their state laws. This paper will argue that it did no such thing and instead unleashed a wave of confusing cases involving competing and sometimes conflicting sources of power at different levels of government. To do so, it will focus on a specific state—Wisconsin—where abortions were unavailable for fifteen months because different sources of legal authority disagreed on which law should apply |
| author |
Légier, Anne |
| author_facet |
Légier, Anne |
| author_sort |
Légier, Anne |
| title |
“Returning” Abortion to “the People and Their Elected Representatives”: Chaos, Conflict and Access in Wisconsin in the Aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization |
| title_short |
“Returning” Abortion to “the People and Their Elected Representatives”: Chaos, Conflict and Access in Wisconsin in the Aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization |
| title_full |
“Returning” Abortion to “the People and Their Elected Representatives”: Chaos, Conflict and Access in Wisconsin in the Aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization |
| title_fullStr |
“Returning” Abortion to “the People and Their Elected Representatives”: Chaos, Conflict and Access in Wisconsin in the Aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization |
| title_full_unstemmed |
“Returning” Abortion to “the People and Their Elected Representatives”: Chaos, Conflict and Access in Wisconsin in the Aftermath of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization |
| title_sort |
“returning” abortion to “the people and their elected representatives”: chaos, conflict and access in wisconsin in the aftermath of dobbs v. jackson women’s health organization |
| publisher |
ILCEA |
| publishDate |
2024 |
| container_title |
URI:https://journals.openedition.org/ilcea |
| url |
https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://doi.org/10.4000/11prg https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://journals.openedition.org/ilcea/20162 |
| _version_ |
1877292429788315648 |