Amicus Brief
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
No. 19-1392 ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- THOMAS E. DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al., Petitioners, v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE FOR CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- MARIO DIAZ Counsel of Record CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA 1000 N. Payne St. Alexandria, VA 22314 (202) 488-7000 [email protected] ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. ii STATEMENT OF INTEREST ............................. 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 2 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 4 I. Mississippi Should Be Free To Make Rea- sonable Determinations About Abortion Policy That Place A Higher Value On The Life Of Mothers And Their Unborn Chil- dren ............................................................ 4 II. The Court Has Undervalued The State’s Interest In Women’s Health By Failing To Give Proper Weight To The Physical, Psy- chological, And Emotional Harms Abor- tion Can Have On Women’s Lives ............. 8 III. The Court Should Give Proper Weight To The Views Of A Wide Range Of Women’s Voices, Including Those Who Support Mis- sissippi’s Law and Reject The Court’s One- Sided Abortion Jurisprudence ................... 14 CONCLUSION ..................................................... 18 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (1983) ................................................... 5 Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) ............................................. 4, 18 Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) ......................................... passim Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Currier, 349 F.Supp.3d 536 (2018) .............................. 8, 14, 16 Jackson Women’s Health Organization v. Dobbs, 945 F.3d 265 (2019) ....................................... 9, 14, 16 June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo, 140 S.Ct. 2103 (2020) .............................................. 19 Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1979) ................................................. 18 McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) ................................................. 18 Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) ......................................... passim Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ......................................... passim Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) ................................................. 10 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989) ................................................... 5 Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S.Ct. 2292 (2016) ................................................ 6 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS U.S. Const. amend. X .................................................. 18 STATUTES Miss. Code Ann. 41-41-191 ........................................... 1 OTHER AUTHORITIES Abortion Trends by Gender, GALLUP, available at https://news.gallup.com/poll/245618/abortion- trends-gender.aspx .................................................. 15 Brief Amici Curiae of Feminists for Life of Amer- ica; Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.; Pro- Life Legal Defense Fund, Inc.; and University Faculty for Life in Support of Petitioners, Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) (No. 99-830) ..................................................................... 15 David Crary and Hannah Fingerhut, AP-NORC poll: Most Say Restrict Abortion After 1st Tri- mester, AP (June 25, 2021), available at https:// apnews.com/article/only-on-ap-us-supreme-court- abortion-religion-health-2c569aa7934233af8e 00bef4520a8fa8 ....................................................... 16 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Erika Bachiochi, Embodied Equality: Debunk- ing Equal Protection Arguments for Abortion Rights, 34 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 889 (2011) ....................................................................... 15 Gemma Mullin, Born Survivor: Docs told me my baby ‘wasn’t viable’ when he was born at 20 weeks—now he’s thriving, THE SUN (Nov. 1, 2019), available at https://www.thesun.co.uk/ news/10260209/baby-not-viable-born-20-weeks- thriving ...................................................................... 5 L. Bartlett et al., Risk Factors for Legal Induced Abortion Mortality in the United States, OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY 103(4):729 (2004) ................................................................. 12, 13 Mary Krane Derr & Linda Naranjo-Huebl, Pro- Life Feminism: Yesterday & Today (Rachel MacNair ed. 1995) ................................................... 15 Priscilla K. Coleman, Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009, 199 BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY 180 (2011), DOI: https:// doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.110.077230 ................... 11, 12 Randall O’Bannon Ph.D., 62,502,904 Babies Have Been Killed in Abortions Since Roe v. Wade in 1973, LIFE NEWS (Jan. 18, 2021), available at https://www.lifenews.com/2021/01/18/62502904- babies-have-been-killed-in-abortions-since-roe- v-wade-in-1973/ ......................................................... 6 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Sullins D. P. Abortion, Substance Abuse and Mental Health in Early Adulthood: Thirteen- Year Longitudinal Evidence From the United States. SAGE OPEN MEDICINE (2016), https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312116665997 ...... 12, 13 1 STATEMENT OF INTEREST1 Concerned Women for America (CWA) is the larg- est public policy women’s organization in the United States with members in all fifty states. Through its grassroots organization, CWA encourages policies that strengthen and protect women and families, and advo- cates for the traditional virtues that are central to America’s cultural health and welfare. The protection and recognition of the sanctity of every human life is one of CWA’s seven core issues. CWA represents many of the women who supported and help pass Missis- sippi’s House Bill 1510, the “Gestational Age Act.” Miss. Gen. Laws 2018, ch. 393 (codified at Miss. Code Ann. 41-41-191). CWA believes abortion harms women, men, their families, and the nation and actively promotes legisla- tion and public education to support women in crisis pregnancies and address the harms caused by pro- abortion policies. CWA members are people whose voices are often overlooked—average, middle-class American women whose views are not represented by the powerful elite. CWA affirms that ordinary women are capable of extraordinary things when, inspired by 1 Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37, blanket consents have been filed with the Court by both Respondents (June 1, 2021) and Petitioners (June 9, 2021). No Party or Party’s Counsel authored this Brief in whole or in part, or contributed money to fund its preparation or submission; and no person other than Amicus Curiae, its members or Counsel, contributed money to fund the preparation or submission of this Brief. 2 the love of God, our families, and our country, they work together. CWA believes it is false to suggest women need abortion to have equality. Moreover, CWA affirms women are not a monolithic group assenting to a homogeneous worldview on any policy issue so that this honorable Court benefits from hearing and giving value to a broad range of women voices in cases such as this one. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT All pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortion should not be deemed unconstitutional. As Justice An- thony Kennedy explained in Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 146 (2007), “Casey rejected both Roe’s rigid trimester framework and the interpretation of Roe that considered all pre-viability regulations of abortion unwarranted.” The Court should reject any reading of its precedent that forces states to ignore scientific, medical, or sociological data in order to abide by an amorphous concept of viability that will only continue to promote uncertainty in the law. This Court should not continually second guess a state’s, such as Mississippi’s, balancing efforts to pro- tect and promote the welfare of its citizens when it comes to abortion. Failure to show restraint in this matter makes the Court’s declarations that “States are free to enact laws to provide a reasonable framework for a woman to make a decision that has such profound and lasting meaning” hollow. Planned Parenthood of 3 Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 873 (1992). The Constitution, very intentionally, leaves these types of determinations to the states, as they are better positioned to act and react to new challenges and fast-developing scientific advances. The time has come for the Court to rectify the constitutional errors of its abortion jurisprudence. The Court has failed