{"id":1574,"date":"2023-12-12T20:02:20","date_gmt":"2023-12-13T01:02:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/in-print\/red-herring-history-an-analysis-of-why-dobbs-is-not-originalism\/"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:11:36","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:11:36","slug":"red-herring-history-an-analysis-of-why-dobbs-is-not-originalism","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/in-print\/volume-21-issue-2-summer-2023\/red-herring-history-an-analysis-of-why-dobbs-is-not-originalism\/","title":{"rendered":"Red Herring History: An Analysis of Why Dobbs is Not Originalism"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"p2\">Several of the Supreme Court\u2019s recent opinions have brought originalism under fire, but none more so than <span class=\"s2\"><i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/i><\/span>. Many now criticize the originalist framework as providing a cramped view of civil rights for groups that were marginalized at the Founding. Given the conclusion that \u201cwe\u2019re all originalists now,&#8221;<span class=\"s3\">\u00a0<\/span>the dominance of originalism would thus seem to be cause for deep concern. But is originalism really to blame? <span class=\"s5\"><i>Dobbs <\/i><\/span>has been criticized by many originalists themselves, who decry the decision as rooted in non-originalist reasoning.<span class=\"s3\">\u00a0<\/span>So the question remains: is <span class=\"s5\"><i>Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization <\/i><\/span>really originalist? Or is there something else underlying the conservative majority\u2019s decision? This paper argues that <span class=\"s5\"><i>Dobbs <\/i><\/span>is not grounded in originalism, but rather in tradition-based substantive due process.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Continue reading <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/23\/2023\/12\/Red-Herring-History_Simon.pdf\">Red Herring History: An Analysis of Why <em>Dobbs<\/em> is Not Originalism<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Several of the Supreme Court\u2019s recent opinions have brought originalism under fire, but none more so than Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization. Many now criticize the originalist framework as providing a cramped view of civil rights for groups that were marginalized at the Founding. Given the conclusion that \u201cwe\u2019re all originalists now,&#8221;\u00a0the dominance of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":29,"featured_media":0,"parent":1543,"menu_order":14,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1574","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1574","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/29"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1574"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1574\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1867,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1574\/revisions\/1867"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1543"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/public-policy-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1574"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}