By Denise Dezendorf, JHBL Staff Member
After the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion in its’ recent decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., colleges around the United States are struggling to provide comprehensive care for all students in a post-Roe America.[1] This decision overturned almost 50 years of precedent in the United States, giving the power back to the states to create laws pertaining to the restriction of abortion.[2] As the number of states with restrictive abortion laws grow, many medical professionals face increased worry of being placed in legal jeopardy just for mentioning abortion as an option to students looking for reproductive care.[3] In the United States, those in their twenties account for the highest percentages of abortion.[4] So, where does this leave the health of college students and their access to care?
To put it simply, college healthcare providers are confused.[5] Like other healthcare professionals around the country, providers are unsure of what information is appropriate to give to their students as options when faced when an unexpected or dangerous pregnancy.[6] In addition, most universities have received little to no guidance from quiet university leaders on the Roe v. Wade reversal.[7] Training in medical schools is also disoriented, as 44% of obstetrics and gynecology residents are in states where abortion training is likely to be restricted, as well as confusion with training provided across state lines.[8] With a lack of holistic training in this sector, OBGYNs will not be able to provide total and necessary care for their future patients in need of an abortion.
Universities around the United States have begun to face their own, individualized challenges as they provide students with access to reproductive care. Largely populated universities, like Vanderbilt University in Tennessee, are relatively better off than small universities, with well-funded health care centers partnered with better equipped legal teams to help providers stay within the law. For instance, at Vanderbilt, a university wide task force was created by the Office of the Provost to focus on the abortion ban and. “particularly clinical care, student and employee health and education instruction, while also helping to drive academic discussion and programming to promote robust discourse and civic engagement around this important topic.”[9] Continuing conversations at a university in a state with such a strict abortion ban like Tennessee will help healthcare professionals better serve their students.[10]
On the other hand, many small, rural schools may not be equipped with adequate health centers. At colleges like Prescott College in Arizona, organizations such as Planned Parenthood visit the campus a few times a year to offer care that is typically available through standard health centers – counseling and testing for sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy.[11] However, restrictive abortion laws around the country, it has become difficult for students to even access that care in places where their health care opportunities are already limited.[12]
Unfortunately for most, this is just the start of concern and confusion on college campuses. As signaled in the Dobbs opinion, precedents including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell protecting contraception, same-sex intercourse, and same-sex marriage can be curtailed by future decisions.[13] In addition to Roe, these cases rest on substantive due process, which only allows the government to deprive a person’s life, liberty, or property if the government is justified by a sufficient purpose.[14] Now that Roe has been overturned, all of these rights are in jeopardy of also being overturned, as mentioned in Justice Thomas’ concurring Dobbs opinion stating, “We should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”[15]
Since the overturning of Roe, this is one of the many consequences this country faces because of the loss of this constitutional protection.[16] Access to abortion helps effects economic status, educational equity, and mental and physical health of all those effected.[17] When we restrict abortion not only are we restricting the bodily autonomy of those with uteruses, but we are creating unwavering barriers for those disadvantaged by these restrictive abortion laws. As college students begin to discern these issues on their campuses, they face a call to action to apply their efforts to other affected communities.[18]
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHBL or Suffolk University Law School
Denise Dezendorf is a second-year law student at Suffolk University Law School and a staff member of the Journal of Health and Biomedical Law. Denise graduated from the University of Rhode Island with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Public Relations. Denise’s interests include corporate law with a focus in compliance, risk, and contract management.
[1] See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973); see also Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022)
[2] See Dobbs 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022) at 2284
We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
Id. at 2284.
[3] See Megan Messerly & Alice Miranda Ollstein, Abortion bans and penalties would vary widely by state, politico https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/06/potential-abortion-bans-and-penalties-by-state-00030572. This article outlines the different penalties for physicians who perform abortions by state.
[4] See Katherine Kortsmit et. al., Abortion Surveillance—United States, 2019, centers for disease control and prevention (2021) https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm.
[5] See Sequoia Carrillo & Pooja Salhotra, Colleges navigate confusing legal landscapes as new abortion laws take effect, npr (2022) https://www.npr.org/2022/07/19/1112014281/abortion-laws-college-campus.
[6] See Kate McGee, Texas universities grapple with how to provide reproductive health care information to students amid new abortion laws, the texas tribune (2022) https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/20/texas-universities-abortion-reproductive-care/.
[7] See Roe, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
[8] See Shelby J. Lundberg & Dick Startz, The end of Roe creates new challenges in higher education, brookings (2022) https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2022/08/09/the-end-of-roe-creates-new-challenges-in-higher-education/; Whitney S. Rice & Subasri Narasimhan, “Post-Roe” Abortion Policy Context Heightens the Imperative for Multilevel, Comprehensive, Integrated Health Education, Health Educ.& Behavior V. 49 Issue 6 (2022).
[9] See Vanderbilt establishes task force to address Supreme Court’s reproductive rights decision, mvvu news Vanderbilt univ. (2022) https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2022/06/24/vanderbilt-establishes-task-force-to-address-supreme-courts-reproductive-rights-decision/.
[10] See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-217.
[11] See College navigate confusing legal landscapes as new abortion laws take effect, supra note 5.
[12] Ala. Code § 26-22-3 (establishing a total abortion ban); Ark. Code Ann. § 5-61-102 (prohibiting abortion entirely); Idaho Code § 18-606 (establishing a trigger ban criminalizing abortion); Ky. Rev. Stat. § 311.760 2019 (establishing a trigger ban); La . ALS 31, 2019 La . ACT 31, 2019 La . SB 184 (enforcing a trigger ban prohibiting abortion entirely with criminal and civil penalties); Miss. Code Ann. § 41-41-73 (prohibiting abortion in nearly all situations); § 188.026 R.S.Mo. (enforcing a trigger ban to prohibit abortion entirely); Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 1-731.3 (enforcing two bans to prohibit abortion entirely); S.D. Codified Laws § 22-17-5 (enforcing a trigger ban to prohibit abortion entirely); Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-15-217 (enforcing a trigger ban criminalizing abortion); 2021 Tex. SB 8, 2021 Tex. Gen. Laws 62, 2021 Tex. Ch 62, 2021 Tex. ALS 62 (establishing a ban prohibiting abortion with civil and criminal penalties); W. Va. Code §16-2R-3 (establishing a total ban on abortion).
[13] See Dobbs 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472 (2003); Obergefell v. Hodges, 574 U.S. 1118, 135 S. Ct. 1039 (2015); See also Erik Larson & Emma Kinery, Same-Sex Marriage, Contraception at Risk After Roe Ruling (3), Bloomberg law (2022) https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-justices-disagree-on-scope-of-dobbs-ruling.
[14] See Erwin Chemerinsky, Substantive Due Process, touro law review vol. 15 (1999) at 1501; see also Roe 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
[15] See Dobbs 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022) at 2302; see also Roe 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
[16] See Roe 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
[17] See Nora Howe, The Untold Consequences of Losing Abortion Access, alliance for justice https://www.afj.org/article/the-untold-consequences-of-losing-abortion-access/.
[18] See Liann Herder, Minoritized Students Already Stressed, Now Worry About Abortion, diverse issues in higher education (2022) https://www.diverseeducation.com/student-issues/article/15293988/minoritized-students-already-stressed-now-worry-about-abortion.