Child Sacrifices: The Precarity of Minors’ Autonomy and Bodily Integrity After Dobbs
Teri Dobbins Baxter* | 26.4 | Citation: Teri Dobbins Baxter, Child Sacrifices: The Precarity of Minors’ Autonomy and Bodily Integrity After Dobbs, 26 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 988 (2024).
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional right to abortion. The decision has had a devastating impact on people seeking abortions in many states, and it will have an even more profound effect on the rights and lives of minors. Pregnant minors face greater risks than pregnant adults when they are forced to continue a pregnancy that can harm their physical and mental health and their educational and financial futures. Very young minors are incapable of consenting to the sexual acts that result in pregnancy, but many states require even these young rape victims to sacrifice their health and well-being—and potentially their lives—for the sake of a future child.
But the Dobbs opinion also calls into question other constitutional rights of minors. In Dobbs the Supreme Court interpreted its prior holdings to recognize a substantive right under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause only for (1) “rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments,” and (2) a “select list” of unenumerated fundamental rights. “In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the Court has long asked whether the right is ‘deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition’ and whether it is essential to our Nation’s 'scheme of ordered liberty.” If a right does not fall within either of those categories, it is not entitled to substantive constitutional protection under that provision. The Court concluded that the right to abortion was not protected by the Constitution.
***
* Williford Gragg Distinguished Professor, University of Tennessee College of Law; B.A., J.D. Duke University.