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

Abstract

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.