Skip to content
Center for Reproductive Rights
Center for Reproductive Rights

Primary Menu

  • About
    • Overview
    • The Center’s Impact
    • Center Leadership & Staff
    • Annual Reports
    • Corporate Engagement
    • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Work
    • Overview
    • Litigation
    • Legal Policy and Advocacy
    • Resources & Research
    • Recent Case Highlights
    • Landmark Cases
    • Cases Archive
    • World’s Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
  • Issues
    • Overview
    • Abortion
    • Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
    • Assisted Reproduction
    • Contraception
    • Humanitarian Settings
    • Maternal Health
    • COVID-19
  • Regions
    • Overview
    • Global Advocacy
    • Africa
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • United States
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Stories
    • Events
    • Center in the Spotlight
    • Press Releases
    • Statements
    • Press Room
    • Newsletters
  • Resources
    • Resources & Research
    • U.S. Abortion Rights: Resources
    • Maps
    • World Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
    • Repro Red Flags: Agency Watch
  • Act
    • Overview
    • Give
    • Act
    • Learn
  • Donate
    • Become a Monthly Donor
    • Make a Donor Advised Fund Gift
    • Leave a Legacy Gift
    • Donate Gifts of Stock
    • Give a Gift in Honor
    • Attend an Event
    • Employee Matching Gifts
    • Mail a Check
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn
Donate
icon-hamburger icon-magnifying-glass Donate
icon-magnifying-glass-teal

The Disproportionate Harm of Abortion Bans: Spotlight on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health

Center for Reproductive Rights - Center for Reproductive Rights - search logo
search Close Close icon
Center for Reproductive Rights -
Menu Close Menu Close icon
Donate

Primary Menu

  • About
    • Overview
    • The Center’s Impact
    • Center Leadership & Staff
    • Annual Reports
    • Corporate Engagement
    • Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Work
    • Overview
    • Litigation
    • Legal Policy and Advocacy
    • Resources & Research
    • Recent Case Highlights
    • Landmark Cases
    • Cases Archive
    • World’s Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
  • Issues
    • Overview
    • Abortion
    • Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
    • Assisted Reproduction
    • Contraception
    • Humanitarian Settings
    • Maternal Health
    • COVID-19
  • Regions
    • Overview
    • Global Advocacy
    • Africa
    • Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America and the Caribbean
    • United States
  • News
    • Latest News
    • Stories
    • Events
    • Center in the Spotlight
    • Press Releases
    • Statements
    • Press Room
    • Newsletters
  • Resources
    • Resources & Research
    • U.S. Abortion Rights: Resources
    • Maps
    • World Abortion Laws Map
    • After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State
    • Repro Red Flags: Agency Watch
  • Act
    • Overview
    • Give
    • Act
    • Learn
  • Donate
    • Become a Monthly Donor
    • Make a Donor Advised Fund Gift
    • Leave a Legacy Gift
    • Donate Gifts of Stock
    • Give a Gift in Honor
    • Attend an Event
    • Employee Matching Gifts
    • Mail a Check
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • LinkedIn

Related Content

Issues:

Abortion, Legal Restrictions

Regions:

United States

Work:

In the Courts

Type:

News, Story

Case Archive

For updates on Center cases, explore our case archive here.

Follow the Center

Donate Now

Join Now

11.29.2021

In the Courts Abortion United States News

The Disproportionate Harm of Abortion Bans: Spotlight on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health

Megan Diamondstein
Abortion bans—such as Mississippi's ban under review in the Center's upcoming Supreme Court case—exacerbate societal inequalities and disproportionately harm people of color and others who already face obstacles to health care.

Share

  • facebook
  • Twitter
  • linkedin
  • Email id
©Joy Asico/AP Images for Center for Reproductive Rights

Abortion is essential health care and a constitutionally protected right. Yet, over the last decade, anti-abortion lawmakers have passed hundreds of state laws designed to restrict and ban access to abortion. Such measures disproportionately harm people that already face discriminatory obstacles to accessing health care.

One such law—Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban—will come before the U.S. Supreme Court on December 1 in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The case—being argued by the Center for Reproductive Rights—is the most consequential abortion rights case in generations.  

Read more about the case.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health OrganizationDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization link

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

This consequential Supreme Court case will be argued on Wednesday, December 1. Listen to oral arguments at 10 a.m.

In the case, the state of Mississippi has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade—the Court’s 1973 decision recognizing the constitutional right to abortion—and rule that abortion is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. 

Abortion bans, like Mississippi’s, are deeply harmful and perpetuate an unjust system in the U.S. where people who already experience discrimination and disparate health outcomes—especially Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, people with disabilities, young people, and people living on low incomes—are prevented from accessing essential health care services.

Advocates, Experts, and People Impacted Submit Briefs to SCOTUS About Harms of Abortion Bans 

The harmful and disproportionate impacts of abortion bans are laid out in numerous amicus briefs, also known as “friend of the court” briefs, filed in support of the Center’s case challenging the Mississippi ban.  

Experts in reproductive justice, birth equity organizations, and groups representing Black women and Native American communities, and other people and communities impacted by abortion restrictions explain how abortion bans exacerbate existing inequalities and disproportionately harm people of color and people from low-income backgrounds. 

Highlights of the amicus briefs and their arguments: 

Reproductive Justice Organizations 

Reproductive Justice advocates and organizers—including Mississippi in Action, Women With A Vision, Access to Reproductive Care: Southeast, and In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda—address the distinct harms Mississippi’s abortion ban would have on Black women, people of color, and other communities if it were to take effect. 

Rally for abortion rights!

Abortion Is Essential: Rally for Our Rights - December 1Abortion Is Essential: Rally for Our Rights – December 1 link

Abortion Is Essential: Rally for Our Rights – December 1

Join us at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, December 1 at 7:30 a.m.

“This brief focuses on Black and Brown people, as well as disabled, low-income, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ people living in Mississippi and Louisiana,” the advocates write in the brief. “Members of these communities already have difficulty accessing reproductive care because of racial and socioeconomic structural barriers. The reproductive autonomy of Black and Brown people, for instance, is intensely intertwined with, and limited by, the socioeconomic consequences of racial oppression.” 

These barriers create deep inequalities in health care access and outcomes. The brief explains, “Marginalized people in Mississippi…lack access to healthcare services and comprehensive sexual education, and often have poorer health outcomes—realities that make access to reproductive care for these communities all the more essential, while perversely placing such care out of their reach.” 

Amici also put Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban in a historical context, explaining how it is firmly rooted in “long and ugly traditions of denying people of color their reproductive autonomy.” In contrast, “abortion’s central promise is autonomy—the ability to control one’s own body and destiny.”  Read the brief by Reproductive Justice Organizations. 

Birth Equity Organizations 

The National Birth Equity Collaborative and other organizations and individuals working to improve maternal health outcomes describe how the U.S. already faces a maternal health crisis that disproportionately affects Black women, and why it would be made worse if Mississippi’s ban were to take effect. 

Black women “are more likely to experience adverse maternal health outcomes than any other group, both in Mississippi and in the United States more generally. These disparate outcomes reflect a lengthy history of state-sanctioned, racially-motivated policies and practices,” write amici.  

In the U.S., “Black women were nearly two and a half times more likely to die from childbirth than were white women” and “the pregnancy-related mortality ratio in Mississippi was three times higher for Black women than for white women.” 

Amici explain that the Mississippi abortion ban will exacerbate this maternal health crisis by forcing “pregnant persons who wish to terminate their pregnancies after 15 weeks’ gestation to instead carry those pregnancies to term, thus incurring significantly greater maternal health risks, including nearly doubling their risk of death.” 

Amici from birth equity organizations emphasize the need to ensure access to the full range of reproductive choices, including abortion, to promote maternal health. “Advancing maternal health requires that pregnant persons have the autonomy to make reproductive health decisions for themselves and their families,” write amici. “It is particularly important that Black women have that autonomy in light of the continuing impact of racist policies and practices on their health, and the correspondingly greater health risks they face from pregnancy and childbirth.”  Read the brief by Birth Equity Organizations. 

Native American Communities 

In this brief, numerous Native American communities explain how Mississippi’s abortion ban would exacerbate the harms already imposed on their communities as a result of the federal government’s failure to fulfill its obligation to provide reproductive health care to Native people.  

The signers include Cecilia Fire Thunder, National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center, Native American Community Board, and over 30 other organizations and 225 individuals committed to ensuring that Native people in the United States and Territories have access to comprehensive reproductive health services. 

“As a result of a targeted control over Native reproduction, coupled with woefully underfunded health care, Native women experience disproportionately poor health outcomes, including high rates of maternal and infant mortality and morbidity,” the amici write. “The lack of access to comprehensive women’s health care is life-threatening to Native women, trauma-and poverty-inducing for families and communities, and costly for economies and health systems.” 

The brief argues that upholding the Mississippi ban would open another dark chapter of depriving Native people the right and dignity to decide if, when, and how to have a family. The brief explains, “Abortion restrictions further compound socioeconomic stressors contributing to poor financial stability. For Native women, this means exacerbating longstanding disparities and jeopardizing the health of future generations.” 

The representatives of Native American communities also highlight that preventing, instead of providing, access to meaningful reproductive health care and abortion is a human rights violation and a violation of the government’s trust responsibility.  Read the brief by Native American Communities. 

LGBTQ Organizations 

Organizations and advocates dedicated to protecting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people explain how a court decision gutting the constitutional right to abortion would cause grave harm to members of the LGBTQ community. Amici include the National Center for Lesbian Rights, National Center for Transgender Equality, the National LGBTQ+ Bar Association, the Human Rights Campaign, and other LGBTQ advocacy organizations. 

Amici argue that “Overturning Roe and Casey would have a deeply disruptive effect on the lives and expectations of millions of women, including those who are members of the LGBTQ community…By stripping sexual minority women of an essential aspect of equal freedom, overturning Roe and Casey would inflict significant harm on this community.” 

Specifically, because members of the LGBTQ community already face significant barriers to accessing reproductive health care, being denied an abortion, “exposes an already at-risk population to greater rates of poverty, domestic violence, and negative health outcomes.” As amici explain, members of the LGBTQ community “are more likely to lack insurance. And they face widespread discrimination in the health care system, including in the provision of contraceptive care. All of these factors combine to make sexual minority women among the most vulnerable who rely on abortion rights.”  Read the brief by LGBTQ Organizations. 

Disability Rights Organizations 

The brief of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network and the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund addresses the ways in which people with disabilities have long been denied control over their bodies and face multiple barriers to reproductive health care.  

These include barriers to abortion care for reasons ranging from “lack of simple physical access to health facilities,” to laws that fail to recognize the “many physical disabilities and chronic health conditions can complicate pregnancy, in ways that render a 15-week gestational ban entirely unworkable” for some people with disabilities. 

“As a result of these challenges and others, obtaining an abortion with a disability often requires substantial long-term planning that may simply be impossible if this Court allows the challenged statute to go into effect,” the amici write. 

Amici conclude that, “Both because of the unique health challenges associated with pregnancies in disabled people and because of the special access challenges they face, banning abortion after 15 weeks would undermine their ability to make a meaningful decision about whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy.”  Read the brief by Disability Rights Organizations. 

These briefs are among over 50 amicus briefs filed supporting this case that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 1. For more information, go to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. 

Take action: 

  • Rally for abortion rights at the U.S. Supreme Court on December 1. RSVP here. 
  • Use this social media toolkit to spread the word about what’s at stake in this case. 

Read these briefs and more:

  • Reproductive Justice Organizations Amicus Brief
  • Birth Equity Organizations Amicus Brief
  • Native American Communities Amicus Brief
  • LGBTQ Organizations Amicus Brief
  • Disability Rights Organizations Amicus Brief
  • More amicus briefs filed in the case.

More about the case:

  • Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. 
  • Video: Center attorneys explain the stakes in the case.

Tags: SCOTUS, mississippi abortion ban, Scotus Mississippi abortion case, amicus briefs, Abortion ban, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

Related Posts

Brief for Petitioners – June Medical Services v. Gee

Legal Restrictions,United States,In the Courts

Join us at the U.S. Supreme Court to rally for abortion access

On Wednesday, March 4, the Center for Reproductive Rights will present arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in June Medical Services v. Russo (formerly June Medical Services v. Gee)—a...

Abortion,United States,In the Courts

Roe at Risk: U.S. Supreme Court to Review Mississippi’s Abortion Ban, a Direct Challenge to Roe v. Wade

The Center for Reproductive Rights will return to the United States Supreme Court next term to defend the right to...

Abortion,United States,In the Courts
Roe at Risk: U.S. Supreme Court to Review Mississippi’s Abortion Ban, a Direct Challenge to Roe v. Wade

Sign up for email updates.

The most up-to-date news on reproductive rights, delivered straight to you.

Footer Menu

  • Careers
  • Privacy Policy
  • Gift Acceptance Policy
  • Contact Us

Center for Reproductive Rights
© (1992-2024)

Use of this site signifies agreement with our disclaimer and privacy policy.

Better Business Bureau Charity Watch Top Rated Center for Reproductive Rights
This site uses necessary, analytics and social media cookies to improve your experience and deliver targeted advertising. Click "Options" or click here to learn more and customize your cookie settings, otherwise please click "Accept" to proceed.
OPTIONSACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
CookieDurationDescription
_ga2 yearsThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to calculate visitor, session, campaign data and keep track of site usage for the site's analytics report. The cookies store information anonymously and assign a randomly generated number to identify unique visitors.
_gat_UA-6619340-11 minuteNo description
_gid1 dayThis cookie is installed by Google Analytics. The cookie is used to store information of how visitors use a website and helps in creating an analytics report of how the wbsite is doing. The data collected including the number visitors, the source where they have come from, and the pages viisted in an anonymous form.
_parsely_session30 minutesThis cookie is used to track the behavior of a user within the current session.
HotJar: _hjAbsoluteSessionInProgress30 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjFirstSeen30 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjid1 yearThis cookie is set by Hotjar. This cookie is set when the customer first lands on a page with the Hotjar script. It is used to persist the random user ID, unique to that site on the browser. This ensures that behavior in subsequent visits to the same site will be attributed to the same user ID.
HotJar: _hjIncludedInPageviewSample2 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjIncludedInSessionSample2 minutesNo description
HotJar: _hjTLDTestsessionNo description
SSCVER1 year 24 daysThe domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for online advertising by creating user profile based on their preferences.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
CookieDurationDescription
_fbp3 monthsThis cookie is set by Facebook to deliver advertisement when they are on Facebook or a digital platform powered by Facebook advertising after visiting this website.
fr3 monthsThe cookie is set by Facebook to show relevant advertisments to the users and measure and improve the advertisements. The cookie also tracks the behavior of the user across the web on sites that have Facebook pixel or Facebook social plugin.
IDE1 year 24 daysUsed by Google DoubleClick and stores information about how the user uses the website and any other advertisement before visiting the website. This is used to present users with ads that are relevant to them according to the user profile.
IMRID1 year 24 daysThe domain of this cookie is owned by Nielsen. The cookie is used for storing the start and end of the user session for nielsen statistics. It helps in consumer profiling for online advertising.
personalization_id2 yearsThis cookie is set by twitter.com. It is used integrate the sharing features of this social media. It also stores information about how the user uses the website for tracking and targeting.
TDID1 yearThe cookie is set by CloudFare service to store a unique ID to identify a returning users device which then is used for targeted advertising.
test_cookie15 minutesThis cookie is set by doubleclick.net. The purpose of the cookie is to determine if the user's browser supports cookies.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
CookieDurationDescription
adEdition1 dayNo description
akaas_MSNBC10 daysNo description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional1 yearThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others1 yearNo description
geoEdition1 dayNo description
next-i18next1 yearNo description
SAVE & ACCEPT
Powered by CookieYes Logo
Scroll Up