This presentation is the fifth installment in a multi-part In Conversation Series from ABA CRSJ's Reproductive Rights and Justice Committee. Learn more at ambar.org/reprorights
From the rise of originalism in constitutional interpretation to the landmark Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, courts have increasingly relied on this legal philosophy to justify the rollback of reproductive rights. However, recent state court rulings in North Dakota and Georgia demonstrate how constitutional protections at the state level are being used to challenge originalist arguments and safeguard individual rights. These cases highlight a growing resistance to originalism and its implications for reproductive autonomy. Join our experts as they examine how the North Dakota and Georgia cases push back against originalist interpretations of the law and explore why these legal battles matter. We'll discuss the judges' reasoning, the broader implications for reproductive rights, and how state constitutions are becoming critical tools for protecting privacy and liberty in the post-Dobbs landscape. This discussion will provide a comprehensive look at combating originalism in the courts, unpacking strategies and insights for advancing reproductive justice and challenging regressive legal frameworks.
Speakers:
Diana Kasdan – Legal and Policy Director for the Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy, UCLA law
Meetra Mehdizadeh – Senior Staff Attorney, US Litigation, Center for Reproductive Rights
Moderator:
Aracely Muñoz – Director of the Lawyers Network, Center for Reproductive Rights; Chair, Reproductive Rights and Justice Committee, ABA Section of Civil Rights and Social Justice
