In the amicus brief, the scholars argue that Mississippi’s abortion ban–which provides no exception for rape or incest–runs counter to constitutional law and ignores the public health risks it creates for women and their families. The organizational and individual amici joined together in the brief to urge the Supreme Court to reject Mississippi’s law as unconstitutional.
“As a pediatrician I have seen the adverse consequences to health and wellbeing when women are forced to carry unintended and unwanted pregnancies to term,” Lynn Goldman, Dean of the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, said. “Mississippi’s ban, and others like it, disproportionately affects younger women, women of color, and communities already struggling with high maternal mortality rates, preterm births and other health burdens. They are an unwarranted intrusion on women’s constitutional rights, their privacy, and their ability to work with healthcare professionals to make the right decisions for their own health and that of their families.”
In the brief, Goldman and the other amici point out that fourteen states with the nation’s most restrictive abortion laws, including Mississippi, invest the least in policies and programs aimed at improving the health of women and children. They also cite a Commonwealth Fund study of population health that ranks Mississippi last in the nation on a score that measures infant mortality, preventable death, and other benchmarks of child health.
The amici call on the Supreme Court to affirm a lower court’s ruling declaring Mississippi’s law unconstitutional. They further argue that objective evidence overwhelmingly points to abortion access as a necessary tool in promoting health and in mitigating health threats to women and their families.
The brief can be accessed here. The amici are represented by attorneys Edward T. Waters, Phillip A. Escoriaza and Rosie Dawn Griffin of Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell, LLP of Washington, DC.
The public health scholars who signed the brief did so in their individual capacities. The views expressed are their own and do not represent their affiliated institutions, organizations or employers.
Read a blog post about the public health amicus brief here.