Washington DC
Protected
Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe:
Abortion is protected in the District of Columbia. However, due to the District’s unique legal status, the U.S. Congress could attempt to prohibit or severely restrict abortion in the district.
Restrictions
The federal government limits public funding for abortion in the District of Columbia.[1]Pub. L. No. 111-117 §814 (2009); Pub. L. No. 112-10 § 1572 (2011). District law prohibits certified nurse midwives from providing surgical abortion care.[2]D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 17, § 5808.5.
Protections
In 2020, the District of Columbia amended the District’s Human Rights Act of 1977 and recognized the right to abortion and self-managed abortion, among other reproductive rights.[3]D.C. Code § 2-2086.01 However, this protection may not be immune from congressional interference.[4]U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 17. The district protects clinic safety and access by prohibiting obstruction, trespassing, and interference.[5]D.C. CODE § 22-1314.02.
In 2022, the District of Columbia enacted protections to prohibit criminal penalties for people who self-manage their abortion, helpers, and providers of products for self-managed abortions.[6]Id. § 7-2086.01(3). Further, the District amended the Human Rights Act of 1977 to prohibit cooperation with out-of-state investigations and legal actions arising from the lawful provision of abortion care in the District. Anyone sued in another state for providing, accessing, or helping someone access abortion can file their own legal action for unlawful interference with a protected right, and, recover actual damages from the out-of-state litigant.[7]Id. § 2-1461.02.
Post-Roe Prohibitions
The district repealed its pre-Roe ban in 2004.[8]Id. § 22-101 (1981), repealed by 50 D.C. Reg. 10996 (Apr. 29, 2004).
Conclusion
Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe, abortion will likely remain accessible in the District of Columbia, but without legal protection. Furthermore, the district remains subject to plenary congressional power,[9]U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 17. and it is possible that the U.S. Congress could prohibit or severely restrict abortion in the absence of Roe.[10]See generally, Marijuana Policy Project v. United States, 304 F.3d 82 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (upholding the validity of a congressional enactment prohibiting the District of Columbia from reducing the … Continue reading
References
| ↑1 | Pub. L. No. 111-117 §814 (2009); Pub. L. No. 112-10 § 1572 (2011). |
|---|---|
| ↑2 | D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 17, § 5808.5. |
| ↑3 | D.C. Code § 2-2086.01 |
| ↑4 | U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 17. |
| ↑5 | D.C. CODE § 22-1314.02. |
| ↑6 | Id. § 7-2086.01(3). |
| ↑7 | Id. § 2-1461.02. |
| ↑8 | Id. § 22-101 (1981), repealed by 50 D.C. Reg. 10996 (Apr. 29, 2004). |
| ↑9 | U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 17. |
| ↑10 | See generally, Marijuana Policy Project v. United States, 304 F.3d 82 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (upholding the validity of a congressional enactment prohibiting the District of Columbia from reducing the penalties for use or possession of marijuana); Banner v. United States, 303 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2004) (upholding validity of congressional prohibition against commuter tax on nonresidents working in the District of Columbia). In 2016, the District of Columbia enacted a Death with Dignity Act, see D.C. CODE § 7-661.01 et seq; subsequently, the House of Representatives unsuccessfully sought to repeal the Death with Dignity Act through an appropriations rider, see H.R. 3354, 115th Cong. Reg. Sess. § 818(b) (2017). |
