Attorneys from the Women’s Law Project have filed the first-ever amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overturned Roe v. Wade. The brief was filed on behalf of law professors David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, and Rachel Rebouché in Moyle v. United States, a case that focuses on providing essential medical care to pregnant people at Medicare-funded hospitals. At the heart of the brief is the argument that Dobbs is not “workable,” which means it is inherently flawed and impractical and therefore should be overturned.
“Dobbs has absolutely wreaked havoc on all different kinds of obstetrical and gynecological care, including abortion but far beyond just abortion,” said Susan J. Frietsche, the co-executive director of the Women’s Law Project. “Our brief looks at what happens when states — all of which have different definitions of abortion, by the way — are left without guidance about how to treat obstetrical emergencies.”
Frietsche says the Women’s Law Project has met with dozens of women who were denied obstetrical care in emergency situations, because of the misapplication and overbreadth of state’s abortion laws. The Dobbs ruling has also raised complex constitutional questions concerning issues such as federalism, preemption, and federal executive power.
“The stories are truly heartbreaking and disgraceful,” said Frietsche. “If you have a rule [that’s] effect is in conflict with its purpose — its stated purpose — then that’s an unworkable rule.”
Cohen, a constitutional law professor at Drexel Kline School of Law, emphasized the urgency of challenging Dobbs.
“We are so excited and proud to have submitted this brief to the Court cataloging the horrors and chaos that have arisen ever since the Supreme Court overturned Roe,” Cohen said in a press release. “We will not rest until this terrible decision is overturned.”
The implications of Dobbs have been far-reaching. Pregnant people in states like Louisiana are being denied prenatal care due to providers’ fear of legal repercussions. As the national election approaches, Frietsche warns of a looming threat of a nationwide abortion ban. While former President Donald Trump has said he would not endorse a nationwide ban if elected for a second term, Frietsche says it is still possible.
“It would be possible for Congress to pass a ban on abortion that would affect all 50 states,” Frietsche said. “It is conceivable that a president could even make a decision to enforce the Comstock Act, the 1873 archaic [and] largely inoperative statute that bans the interstate mailing of materials used in abortion. So it’s possible that we could get a nationwide abortion ban within … five [years].”
Moyle v. United States argues that Medicare-funded hospitals are obligated under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) to provide medically necessary treatment, including pregnancy termination, regardless of state laws restricting abortion. The case is scheduled for oral argument on Apr. 24, with a decision likely to be issued by the end of June.
“This was the wrong direction for the country to take and it needs to be corrected,” Frietsche said.
Prism is an independent and nonprofit newsroom led by journalists of color. We report from the ground up and at the intersections of injustice.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.