Potential Effects of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health on Civil Commitment Law

Since the publication of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health in June of 2022, much attention has been paid to the direct effects of that decision on reproductive health care for pregnant or potentially pregnant individuals; and to the potential effects of the Court's approach in Dobbs to other established precedent related to privacy and autonomy, such as rights to contraception and marriage equality. This Article will explore another potential negative consequence of Dobbs; its potential effect on the constitutional parameters of the law of civil commitment and involuntary medication of the mentally ill.The foundational Supreme Court case establishing the parameters of the State's right to involuntarily commit an individual to a mental institution was decided only two years after Roe v. Wade. In 1975, the Supreme Court in O'Connor v Donaldson held that an individual has a liberty interest in "prefer[ring] one's home to the comforts of an institution," and that a State could not, "without more," confine a non-dangerous individual. The two-prong test of requiring a showing of both mental illness and dangerousness to one's self or to others has remained the cornerstone of civil commitment law ever since.The language and analysis of O'Connor is similar to that of Roe, the abortion rights case overturned by Dobbs. In particular, the grounding of the right to avoid civil commitment in the individual liberty and privacy interests are common themes in the two cases. The current Court, in its decision in Dobbs, has cast substantial doubt on the continued vitality of that analysis; and one can easily imagine a reconceptualization of O'Connor along the lines of Dobbs that substantially alters the requirements for civil commitment. In particular, the reliance in Dobbs and other recent Supreme Court opinions on historical precedent as a linchpin of originalist analysis could lead the Court to search for justifications in colonial or 19th-century mental health practices, time periods which predate modern psychiatric science.This Article will explore the parallels in approach between Roe and O'Connor, and will suggest ways in which the post-Dobbs Supreme Court majority might disrupt the civil commitment status quo, including potential expansion of civil commitment or other detention of pregnant individuals for the protection of the fetus; and possible relaxation of the dangerousness requirement for civil commitment articulated in O'Connor.

Mental Health Matters: A Look At Abortion Law Post-Dobbs

In June 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the precedent set by the 1973 decision in Roe vs. Wade, leaving access to abortion to be regulated by each state, rather than a U.S. constitutional right. Some states are setting gestational age limits, beyond which point only under certain circumstances can an abortion be obtained. Other states are banning abortion outright (regardless of gestational age) unless an "exception" is met. Certain states include an exception for abortion when a woman's physical health is at risk if they continue the pregnancy, but, at the same time, do not provide an exception for women whose mental health is at risk (a "mental health exception").Mental health conditions that develop, continue, or are exacerbated during pregnancy may be manageable or treatable, and women may want to continue their pregnancy even while experiencing such conditions. However, the absence of a choice to terminate their pregnancy as a result of these mental health conditions means women who are unable to successfully manage or treat their mental health during pregnancy have no choice but to experience the impact on their mental health - and reconcile any resulting impact on the fetus.This article will discuss the role a mental health exception plays in state abortion statutes by analyzing the impact of pregnancy on mental health and resources available to support those who experience mental health impacts during pregnancy while, simultaneously, advocating for the inclusion of a mental health exception in state abortion laws.

Characteristics of abortion patients in protected and restricted states accessing clinic-based care 12 months prior to the elimination of the federal constitutional right to abortion in the United States

BACKGROUND

As a result of the June 2022 decision of the United States (US) Supreme Court, as many as 24 states have, or are expected to, ban or severely restrict abortion. We provide baseline information about abortion patients living in different state environments prior to this decision.

METHODS

We obtained surveys from 6674 women, transgender men, and other pregnancy capable individuals accessing abortion care at 56 facilities across the US between June 2021 and July 2022. The final analytic sample uses information from 5930 abortion patients to compare the demographic and situational profiles of those living in the 24 states likely to ban abortion (restricted) to those living in states where it is likely to remain legal (protected).

RESULTS

Compared to respondents who lived in protected states, abortion patients in restricted states were more likely to be Black (39% vs. 30%) or white (35% vs. 28%) and less likely to be Latinx (18% vs. 32%). Respondents in restricted states were more likely to be paying out-of-pocket for care (87% vs. 42%), be relying on financial assistance (22% vs. 11%), and indicate that it was difficult to pay for the abortion (54% vs. 28%). Twelve percent of respondents who lived in a restricted state crossed state lines for care and the majority (59%) was going to another restricted state.

DISCUSSION

Prior to June 2022, abortion patients in restricted states encountered more situational and financial barriers compared to those in protected states. These barriers have undoubtedly been exacerbated by abortion bans.

Projected Health Outcomes Associated With 3 US Supreme Court Decisions in 2022 on COVID-19 Workplace Protections, Handgun-Carry Restrictions, and Abortion Rights

Importance

Several recent US Supreme Court rulings have drawn criticism from the medical community, but their health consequences have not been quantitatively evaluated.

Objective

To model health outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022 that invalidated workplace COVID-19 vaccine or mask-and-test requirements, voided state handgun-carry restrictions, and revoked the constitutional right to abortion.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This decision analytical modeling study estimated outcomes associated with 3 Supreme Court rulings in 2022: (1) National Federation of Independent Business v Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which invalidated COVID-19 workplace protections; (2) New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc v Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police (Bruen), which voided state laws restricting handgun carry; and (3) Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs), which revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2022, to April 7, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

For the OSHA ruling, multiple data sources were used to calculate deaths attributable to COVID-19 among unvaccinated workers from January 4 to May 28, 2022, and the share of these deaths that would have been prevented by the voided protections. To model the Bruen decision, published estimates of the consequences of right-to-carry laws were applied to 2020 firearm-related deaths (and injuries) in 7 affected jurisdictions. For the Dobbs ruling, the model assessed unwanted pregnancy continuations, resulting from the change in distance to the closest abortion facility, and then excess deaths (and peripartum complications) from forcing these unwanted pregnancies to term.

Results

The decision model projected that the OSHA decision was associated with 1402 additional COVID-19 deaths (and 22 830 hospitalizations) in early 2022. In addition, the model projected that 152 additional firearm-related deaths (and 377 nonfatal injuries) annually will result from the Bruen decision. Finally, the model projected that 30 440 fewer abortions will occur annually due to current abortion bans stemming from Dobbs, with 76 612 fewer abortions if states at high risk for such bans also were to ban the procedure; these bans will be associated with an estimated 6 to 15 additional pregnancy-related deaths each year, respectively, and hundreds of additional cases of peripartum morbidity.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that outcomes from 3 Supreme Court decisions in 2022 could lead to substantial harms to public health, including nearly 3000 excess deaths (and possibly many more) over a decade.

Curbing the Epidemic of Community Firearm Violence after the Bruen Decision

The Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen undermines the ability of cities and states to regulate firearms safety. Nonetheless, we remain hopeful that firearm violence can decline even after the Bruen decision. Several promising public health approaches have gained broader adoption in recent years. This essay examines the key drivers of community firearm violence and reviews promising strategies to reverse those conditions, including community violence intervention (CVI) programs and place-based and structural interventions.

The vaccine mandates judgment: Some reflections

This paper scrutinises the Supreme Court Judgment of May 2, 2022, in a vaccine mandate-related petition. The Hon'ble Court's Order reasserts the primacy of right to privacy and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. However, in the interest of protection of communitarian health, the Court felt that the Government is entitled to regulate issues of public health concern by imposing certain limitations on individual rights, which are open to scrutiny by constitutional Courts. However, such mandatory vaccination directives with preconditions cannot invade an individual's right to personal autonomy and right to access means of livelihood, and must meet the threefold criteria laid down in K.S.Puttaswamy, a landmark judgment of 2017. This paper examines the validity of the arguments adopted in the Order and suggests certain infirmities therein. Nevertheless, the Order is a balancing act, and worth celebrating. The paper concludes, as a cup that is "a quarter full", as a victory for human rights and as a safeguard against unreasonableness and arbitrariness in medico-scientific decision-making that takes the citizen's compliance and consent for granted. If the State runs amok by way of mandatory health directives, this Order may come to the rescue of the hapless citizen.

Abortion Policy in the United States: The New Legal Landscape and Its Threats to Health and Socioeconomic Well-Being

Policy Points The historic 2022 Supreme Court Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision has created a new public policy landscape in the United States that will restrict access to legal and safe abortion for a significant proportion of the population. Policies restricting access to abortion bring with them significant threats and harms to health by delaying or denying essential evidence-based medical care and increasing the risks for adverse maternal and infant outcomes, including death. Restrictive abortion policies will increase the number of children born into and living in poverty, increase the number of families experiencing serious financial instability and hardship, increase racial inequities in socioeconomic security, and put significant additional pressure on under-resourced social welfare systems.

Judicial Power and Influence on Population Health

Policy Points Since its founding, the Supreme Court has played a major role in defining the parameters of governments' public health powers and the scope of individual health-related rights. Although conservative courts have been less favorable to public health objectives, federal courts have, for the most part, advanced public health interests through consensus and adherence to the rule of law. In establishing the current six-three conservative supermajority, the Trump administration and the Senate shifted the Supreme Court dramatically. A majority of Justices, led by Chief Justice Roberts, did shift the Court in a decidedly conservative direction. It did so incrementally, guided by the Chief's intuition that the Institution itself should be preserved, mindful of maintaining public trust and appearing outside the political fray. That has all changed because Roberts' voice no longer holds sway. Five members of the Court have displayed a willingness to overturn even long-held precedent and dismantle public health policy in favor of the Justices' core ideological tenants-notably the extensive reach of the First and Second Amendments and a parsimonious view of executive and administrative action. Public health is vulnerable to judicial rulings in this new conservative era. This includes classic public health powers in infectious disease control as well as reproductive rights; lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer or questioning, and others (LGBTQ+) rights; firearm safety; immigration; and climate change. Congress has the power to curb the most extreme actions of the Court while still adhering to the vital ideal of a nonpolitical branch. That does not require Congress itself to overreach (such as by "packing" the Supreme Court, as Franklin Delaeno Roosevelt once proposed). Congress could, however, 1) disempower lower federal judges from issuing injunctions that apply nationwide, 2) limit the Supreme Court's so-called shadow docket, 3) alter the way that presidents appoint federal judges, and 4) set reasonable term limits for federal judges and Supreme Court Justices.

Ethical Practice in a Post-Roe World: A Guide for Social Workers

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, concluding that the Constitution of the United States does not confer a right to abortion. The court's decision in Dobbs immediately introduced challenging ethical issues for social workers who serve people who become pregnant. Key questions concern social workers' ability to protect clients' privacy and confidentiality, documentation protocols, and client abandonment. In addition, social workers must be concerned about the possibility that they are at risk of being named in licensing board and ethics complaints, lawsuits, and criminal court indictments because of their work with people who seek abortion-related information and services. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the Dobbs decision; discuss compelling ethical issues facing social workers who work with people who seek reproductive health information and services; present guidelines to assist social workers who face ethical dilemmas related to reproductive health services; and highlight the critical importance of ethics-informed social work advocacy related to reproductive health.

Antidiscrimination Laws as Essential Tools for Achieving LGBTQ+ Health Equity

This Viewpoint discusses a pending US Supreme Court case to determine the extent to which people who identify as LGBTQ+ are protected under state antidiscrimination laws in the commercial marketplace.

Abortion: Perspectives from an APA Past-President

The United States Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, eliminating the national right to abortion, poses challenges to psychiatrists and patients. Abortion laws now vary widely from state to state and are constantly changing and being challenged. The laws affect both patients and health care professionals; some prohibit not only the performance of abortion but efforts to inform and assist patients seeking abortion. Patients may become pregnant during and/or because of episodes of clinical depression, mania, or psychosis, and recognize that their current circumstances will not allow them to become adequate parents. Some laws allowing abortion to protect a woman's life or health explicitly exclude mental health risks; many prohibit transfer of a patient to a permissive venue. Psychiatrists working with patients contemplating abortion can convey the scientific evidence that abortion does not cause mental illness and help them identify and work through their own beliefs, values, and likely responses to the decision. Psychiatrists will also have to decide whether medical ethics or state laws will govern their own professional behavior.

The urgent need for physician-led abortion advocacy

When the Supreme Court of the United States decided Dobbs v. Jackson, it overruled Roe v. Wade and the decades of legal protections that physicians and patients have relied upon in making pregnancy decisions, including but not limited to abortion care. Abortion access has been limited before Dobbs, but the new legal landscape substantially limits patient access to abortion care by greatly curtailing legal provision of these services in many states, restricting physicians' ability to provide legal abortion care through confusing, inconsistent, and burdensome legal requirements, and by upending decades of reliable standards and leaving physicians and lawyers guessing about possible future court decision. Medical societies and healthcare organizations over the last 50 years since Roe have largely been silent in the face of attacks to abortion rights. Their silence left a void in which politicians and legislators without an understanding of abortion care promoted their own ideology and political interest at the expense of patient access to abortion care, patient autonomy, the physician-patient relationship, and physician autonomy. Physicians have an ethical duty to organize and advocate. Abortion legislation exemplifies the impact of unjust policies limiting our ability to provide patients with autonomy over their medical decision-making and interfering in the provision of evidence-based care, and in some cases preventing us from upholding our oath to do no harm. We must regain control of the examination room from political ideologies so that we can provide equitable, patient-centered, evidence-based, autonomous healthcare to our patients.

Cruzan after Dobbs: What Remains of the Constitutional Right to Refuse Treatment?

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court removed constitutional protection from the individual's right to end a pregnancy. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the Court invalidated previous rulings protecting that right as part of the individual liberty and privacy interests embedded in the U.S. Constitution. Now, many observers are speculating about the fate of other rights founded on those interests. The Dobbs ruling conflicts with the Court's 1990 Cruzan decision restricting the government's power to interfere with personal medical choices. The language and reasoning in Dobbs and Cruzan offer guidance on how the Court might address future cases involving the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. The decisions also point to policy strategies for preserving that right.

Severely Restricting Abortion Threatens Equitable Health Outcomes for People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus

Equitable access to abortion is a critical component of reproductive care. Women with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the United States are disproportionately Black and will be disproportionately affected by abortion bans following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v Wade. We argue that this decision is directly in conflict with the National HIV/AIDS Strategies and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's goals to eliminate perinatal HIV transmission.

Medicaid, the Supreme Court, and Safe Care for Nursing Home Residents

This Viewpoint details the risk to Medicaid beneficiaries if the Supreme Court supports a decision that will allow states to deny benefits to eligible recipients and deny beneficiaries’ ability to hold states accountable in federal court.

Permanent Sterilization in Nulliparous Patients: Is Legislative Anxiety an Indication for Surgery?

AbstractThe Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, first leaked to the public on 2 May 2022 and officially released on 24 June 2022, overturned Roe v. Wade and thereby determined that abortion is no longer a federally protected right under the Constitution. Instead, the decision gives individual states the right to regulate abortion. Since the Dobbs decision first leaked, our institution has received numerous requests for permanent contraception from individuals stating that their motivation to pursue permanent contraception was influenced by the Dobbs decision and concerns about their reproductive autonomy. Discussions with patients seeking permanent contraception since the Supreme Court's leaked decision have led us to ask ourselves, is legislative anxiety an indication for surgery? This article presents a case series consisting of a convenience sample of 17 young, nulliparous individuals who sought out permanent contraception in the six months following the leak of the Dobbs decision. Healthcare professionals often feel discomfort in offering permanent contraception to young and nulliparous individuals. Accordingly, we discuss pertinent legal issues, review relevant ethical considerations, and offer a framework for these discussions intended to empower the consulting healthcare professional to center the bodily autonomy of every patient regardless of age, parity, or indication for permanent contraception.

Now is the time to stand up for reproductive justice and abortion access

The ongoing assault on abortion care in the United States culminating in the Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v Wade calls for concerted national action to address the major gaps in care and training that will ensue. We write this call to action to our community of obstetrician-gynecologists to prioritize advocacy for access to abortion care. Professional health organizations understand the importance of access to contraception and abortion care as the foundation for reproductive health, autonomy, and empowerment. As restrictions proliferate, patients are encountering significant challenges in accessing care; all in our community who provide obstetrical and gynecologic care need to step up to ensure adequate and equitable patient care and provider training. In this Clinical Opinion, we outline current professional organization evidence-based support for comprehensive reproductive health care including abortion care, without interference by politics, strategies to proactively prevent further restrictions, and actions to mitigate the harm that will be caused by further restrictions to abortion care. We must all speak up, be visible in our support, and take any and every opportunity to advocate for abortion care as an integral part of comprehensive reproductive medical care.