Amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration ahead of its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization repeatedly predicted the harms that would be inflicted if the Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and ended constitutional protections for abortion. People who have had abortions, abortion providers, economic experts, political scientists, state legislators, and more forecasted the harm that would befall pregnant people in this country if abortion rights were ripped away: exorbidant expenses to access care for those most vulnerable, the threat and uncertainty of criminalization, medical complications, and the denial of care to young sexual assault victims in their home states, among other obstructions and rights infringements.
At least 14 of the predictions contained in these briefs have already come to fruition in just the first few months since the Supreme Court abandoned established precedent and the rule of law to eviscerate abortion rights. The right-wing justices had full notice of what would happen without Roe and Casey and acted with full knowledge of the suffering they were unleashing.
Among many harmful consequences predicted by experts and presented to the Court in amicus briefs, we have already seen:
New attacks from state legislatures, including total abortion bans, six-week bans, and efforts to ban interstate travel for pregnant people;
Skyrocketing costs and increased travel distances keeping pregnant people from accessing abortion care;
People of color, children and adolescents, undocumented people, people living in rural areas, and others from already marginalized and under-resourced communities severely hindered and entirely cut off from accessing abortion care; and
Threats of investigation, prosecution, and even jailing for people seeking abortion care and medical professionals providing it.
Below are some of the specific predictions forewarned by advocates and experts in their amicus briefs that the Supreme Court knowingly inflicted on the country.
The Supreme Court Knew That States Would Immediately Enforce Trigger Bans and Abortion Restrictions if They Overturned Roe and Casey
Many of the briefs submitted on behalf of Jackson Women’s Health Organization warned the Court that trigger bans & other abortion restrictions would immediately go into effect if it struck down abortion rights.
“...nearly half of the states in this country (22 states, home to 41% of women of childbearing age) are poised to ban abortion if the ban is upheld and Roe v. Wade is overturned, in whole or in part. These states are predominantly located in the South and Midwest and include a large population of economically disadvantaged residents.”
Brief Of Social Science Experts As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 32.
The Supreme Court Knew That States Would Prosecute People Obtaining or Providing Abortion Care If It Overturned Roe and Casey
Numerous briefs submitted to the Court detailed the devastating consequences patients and providers would face if abortions were criminalized, and predicted that many states would prosecute people for abortions and miscarriages if Roe and Casey were overturned.
“Banning abortion creates conditions that lead to people being criminally punished for ending their pregnancies, or for merely being suspected of it based on a reproductive outcome. This is true globally, and U.S. trends in criminalizing people who end or lose pregnancies suggest that it will be true here as well.”
Brief Of Experts, Researchers, And Advocates Opposing The Criminalization Of People Who Have Abortions As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 4.
The Supreme Court Knew It Was Jeopardizing Informational Privacy
Briefs warned that informational privacy could also be on the line if the Court overturned Roe and Casey, and that confidential medical information and other information could be used in abortion prosecutions. Experts and advocates warned the Court that it would be inviting legal battles over informational privacy if it eviscerated abortion rights.
“... the maximalist designs of new laws would ensure this Court’s docket would not be free of ‘abortion cases’— with disputes involving… informational privacy….”
Brief of National Advocates For Pregnant Women et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 32.
The Supreme Court Knew that Young People Would Not Be Able to Receive Abortion Care in Many States
Amicus briefs warned that pre-viability bans could result in young people and young sexual assault survivors being unable to terminate their pregnancies in certain states. For example, Dr. Kristina Tocce told the Court the story of a 13-year-old who had been repeatedly assaulted by her mother’s boyfriend, had not yet had her first menstrual period, and did not discover the pregnancy until she was 23 weeks pregnant.
“Here she was, this 13-year-old girl, wearing a Mickey Mouse sweatshirt. I can’t imagine being in her situation and being told, ‘You must deliver this baby.’ I can’t imagine looking her mother in the eye and telling her, ‘It’s not allowed. She can’t have an abortion.’ I can’t even fathom it.”
Brief of Abortion Care Network et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 29.
The Supreme Court Knew that States Would Enact Bans with No Exceptions for Rape
The Court was warned by state legislators that if Roe and Casey fell, states were likely to enact bans with no exceptions for pregnant people who had been raped, and that rape survivors would be further psychologically and physiologically traumatized from being forced to give birth as a result of these bans.
“...a person in Mississippi pregnant from rape could not only be forced into motherhood, but also potentially forced to continuously confront her attacker in custody hearings, parenting and/or child visitations.”
Brief Of 896 State Legislators As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 32.
The Supreme Court Knew That Travel Distances Would Increase Dramatically for People Seeking Abortion Care
In multiple briefs, the Court was warned that the average travel distance to get abortion care would increase seven-fold if Roe and Casey were overturned. Increased travel distances “cement a two-tiered system of abortion access, further compounding the grave effects of racial and socioeconomic stratification.”
"...[pregnant people] would face an increased average travel distance of 249 miles— an approximately eight hour drive... For Mississippians, for example, that distance is 384 miles; for Texans, 492 miles."
Brief Of California Women’s Law Center As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 14-15.
The Supreme Court Knew that Legislators Would Attempt to Ban Interstate Travel for Pregnant People
The National Advocates for Pregnant Women presented evidence to the Court that state actors would restrict the freedom of movement for pregnant people by preventing them from traveling out of state.
“In a State that is willing, as a number appear to be, to grant a private cause of action to anyone who believes that an abortion law violation is being attempted, a right of action to prevent pregnant women from leaving the State for actual or suspected abortion purposes would be no stretch. There would be no assurance in those cases that women’s federal right to travel would fare any better in state-court balancing than the rights to life and bodily integrity...”
Brief of National Advocates For Pregnant Women et al. As Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 30-31.
The Supreme Court Knew That States Would Suspend Medical Licenses and Launch Investigations of Providers Performing Necessary Care
Amicus briefs detailed the threats to doctors, both professionally and personally, who provide abortion care if the Supreme Court overturned Roe and Casey.
“Such bans require medical professionals to violate the age-old principles of beneficence, non-maleficence, and respect for patient autonomy in order to avoid negative personal and professional consequences such as having their licenses to practice medicine revoked.”
Brief Of American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 27.
The Supreme Court Knew That Costs to Obtain Abortion Care Would Soar
The Court knew that if it overturned Roe and Casey, the already significant financial burdens on people seeking abortion carewould be enormous — particularly for those most vulnerable. Numerous briefs detailed the exorbitant financial burdens pregnant people face when scrambling to find out-of-state care.
“In addition to facing increased travel time, women must pay travel expenses such as transportation and lodging. Compounding these costs, women may need to pay for additional childcare expenses while facing financial loss from missed work.”
Brief Of 896 State Legislators as Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 22.
The Supreme Court Knew That States Would Erect Abortion Bans With No Exceptions for Fetal Anomalies or to Save the Life of the Pregnant Person
The Court received briefs detailing the numerous conditions and threats to a pregnant person’s life that might not qualify as medical emergencies under Mississippi’s ban — and then turned around and opened the door for states to institute even more stringent restrictions without exemptions for fetal anomalies or health of the pregnant person.
“These include, but are not limited to: Alport syndrome…, valvular heart disease..., lupus…, pulmonary hypertension…diabetes…, women who may have experienced conditions constituting a ‘medical emergency’ in previous pregnancies and now seek to terminate a subsequent pregnancy to avoid future life-threatening complications…, [and] mental health issues that might put a woman’s health and life at risk if the pregnancy is not terminated. Any of these conditions can progress and become more serious or lead to additional health risks if abortion care is not available.”
Brief Of American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 24-25.
The Supreme Court Knew that Abortion Bans Would Inflict More Trauma on Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence
The Court received an amicus brief dedicated to explaining the pain, trauma, and danger that it would inflict on survivors of intimate partner violence if it overturned Roe and Casey.
“Not only do survivors of [intimate partner violence] face increased barriers to accessing care, they also are more likely to be forced into unintended pregnancy, to need abortions, and risk being trapped in violent relationships if they are unable to access abortion care. The consequences of such entrapment range from heightened abuse during pregnancy to being killed. Here again, the risks are even greater for survivors from marginalized communities…”
Brief Of Legal Voice et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 7.
The Supreme Court Knew That Undocumented People Would Face Some of The Steepest Hurdles to Obtaining Out-of-State Abortions
The Court knew that overturning Roe and Casey would have devastating consequences for undocumented pregnant people.
“Travel is particularly difficult, if not impossible, for our patients in the Rio Grande Valley, many of whom cannot travel out of state for fear of being deported.”
Brief of Abortion Care Network et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 23.
The Supreme Court Knew Abortion Bans Would Disproportionately Impact The Most Vulnerable
Brief after brief showed the Court the myriad ways that abortion bans and restrictions would disproportionately impact people of color, low-income people, LGBTQ+ people, & people in rural areas. Criminalization, misinformation, travel barriers, & similar barriers are most likely to harm marginalized groups.
“Low-income people, people of color, and adolescents who lack parental support are disproportionately impacted by these barriers and are therefore more likely than others to experience prolonged delay in abortion access….”
Brief of Abortion Funds and Practical Support Organizations as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 4.
“Sexual minority women are more likely to experience unintended pregnancies as a result of sexual violence. They are more likely to lack insurance. And they face widespread discrimination in the health care system, including in the provision of contraceptive care.”
Brief For LGBTQ Organizations And Advocates As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 17.
The Supreme Court Knew That Overturning Roe and Casey Would Cause Mass Confusion
Several briefs notified the Supreme Court that overturning Roe and Casey would confuse the public as to the legal status of abortion in their state and which restrictions, trigger bans, and laws applied — potentially hindering patients from accessing care that was still available to them.
“...the fractured landscape of trigger bans in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and other states, have the additional negative effect of confusing the public, providers, and patients about the legal status of abortion and how to obtain care. State laws that have been blocked by the courts or not yet gone into effect nonetheless sow confusion among the populations in those states about whether abortion is still legal and whether clinics are still open.”
Brief Of 896 State Legislators as Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) at 18.
There is Only One Solution that Meets the Urgency of this Moment
Experts repeatedly provided the Supreme Court with ample evidence of the devastation it would unleash on pregnant people and abortion providers if the right to abortion was no longer protected. Every justice on the Court knew the threats that patients and providers would soon face. They knew countless people — especially people of color, undocumented people, low-income people, young people, and people living in rural areas — would suffer. They knew Americans would be investigated, prosecuted, and jailed simply for seeking or providing abortion care.
The conservative justices understood the grave consequences of their decision to overturn the constitutional right to abortion. And they proceeded to do so anyway. To these six hyper partisan justices, hurting millions of pregnant people is not only justified, it is a victory. This is not a Court working to serve the American people. An unelected Court that abandons the rule of law and knowingly inflicts harm on millions of Americans is not and can never be legitimate.
There is only one solution that meets the urgency of this moment. And we’ve got to act fast. The path to restoring our abortion rights and stopping the far-right’s assault on women, trans, and nonbinary people is clear: we must expand the Court.
Within months of the Court’s decision to overturn abortion rights, so many warnings filed in expert briefs are already our reality. We have no time left to waste. Adding justices is the only way we can have a judiciary that respects the will of the country — and the bodily autonomy and equality of all Americans.
