Risk, Resistance and Resilience: Birth Control Policy in the Wake of Dobbs

ABSTRACT

The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has potentially profound implications for contraception. Contraceptives came up frequently in oral arguments and constitutional protections for abortion and birth control are fundamentally linked (Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479, 1965). Moreover, in recent decisions (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 573 US 682, 2014) the court has endorsed the position of some religious groups that certain forms of contraception are “abortifacients,” essentially a form of abortion. This legal blurring of distinct scientific boundaries between abortion and birth control provides legal pathways for birth control restrictions. That said, in the immediate wake of Dobbs, policy change on birth control has been limited, media coverage on the risks posed to birth control have been scarce, and public support of birth control access has remained robust. We review the current landscape of birth control politics and policy after Dobbs, including state and federal policy responses, elite rhetoric, interest group advocacy, media coverage, and public opinion. Our analysis contributes to an emerging literature on birth control politics and policy.

KEYWORDS:

• Dobbs
• birth control
• gender
• courts
• policy

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Our population of official Twitter accounts was scraped from the Twitter lists provided by the House Democrats (@TheDemocrats) and the House Republicans (@HouseGOP). Using these lists, we searched a total of 187 Democratic and 222 Republican accounts.

2. For a detailed discussion of the methods used by the Stanford Cable TV News Analyzer to track words and phrases in cable television news see Hong et al. (2021).

3. See for example: Banning Birth Control is Abortion Foes Next Goal by Robin Abcarian (2023); Dems fear red states banning abortion will zero in on birth control next by Oriana González; Contraception is already restricted in many states, and it could be the next battleground. Here’s what you need to know by Andrea Michelson (2023); Can the Supreme Court take away birth control? by VanSickle-Ward and Wallsten (2022); Birth control restrictions could follow abortion bans, experts say by Aria Bendix (2022).

4. It is important to point out here, however, that attempts to codify that life begins at fertilization precede and appear largely unaffected by Dobbs. In fact, five states (Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas and Missouri) already have “personhood” laws on the books at the time of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs (Associated Press 2022) and the Guttmacher Institute lists 11 proposed “personhood” bills at the state level in 2021.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kevin Wallsten

Kevin Wallsten is a professor in the Department of Political Science at California State University, Long Beach. He has published over 20 research articles in the areas of American elections, public opinion, political communication, social media and race and ethnic politics. Two of these articles have been acknowledged with awards by the American Political Science Association. His most recent book, entitled Politics of the Pill (co-authored with Rachel VanSickle-Ward), was published with Oxford University Press in 2019.

Rachel VanSickle-Ward

Rachel VanSickle-Ward is a professor of political studies at Pitzer College in Claremont, California. Her research and teaching interests include public policy, public law, gender and politics, and elections. She has published work on reproductive policy, the politics of statutory language, gender and political ambition, voting access, and administrative law. Her books include The Devil is in the Details: Understanding the Causes of Policy Specificity and Ambiguity (SUNY Press, 2014, Herbert A. Simon Book Award 2018), The Politics of the Pill (co-authored with Kevin Wallsten, Oxford University Press 2019) and The Hillary Effect (co edited, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2020).

Sarah Hayes

Sarah Hayes has is a PhD student at Georgetown University. Her research interests are race and ethnic politics, gender politics, and public policy. She has published previous articles on women’s political engagement and public opinion.