Amanda Zablocki, Elizabeth A. Nevins, Arushi Pandya, and Krysten Thomas of SheppardMullin write:
Over two years into the post-Dobbs era, women’s health is taking center stage in the presidential election. In Dobbs v. Jackson, the Supreme Court overturned protections relating to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. Since then, approximately half of the states across the country have enacted or revived laws that ban or significantly restrict access to abortion. This case and the resulting cascade of legal disputes and legislative battles have created a highly dynamic and precarious legal landscape for women’s health. As a result, providers are left uncertain of their rights and obligations. Women in anti-abortion states face challenges obtaining reproductive care and, if pregnant, other medical treatments unrelated to reproductive care, while hospitals and clinics in nearby states without such restrictions are grappling with overwhelming patient loads.
In vying for American votes, the Democratic and Republican parties have offered very different visions for women’s health. Former President Donald Trump has indicated he supports the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson, favoring strict anti-abortion laws and arguing that abortion laws should be left to the states. By contrast, Vice President Kamala Harris is strongly opposed to the Dobbs decision and would seek to return to the protections previously offered by Roe v. Wade. Each candidate is expected to flex the powers and authority of the federal government to the greatest extent they can in order to further their agenda on this important issue should they be elected.
In this article, we will discuss the candidates’ positions on abortion and related issues, and how those positions impact the state of women’s health more broadly.
Read their analysis of each candidate’s position on important issues for women’s health at The National Law Review.